Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the terms of the communications which passed between His Majesty's Government and the French Government concerning the offer of the Spanish Government during the recent crisis to make the River Ebro available as a base of operations, and the island of Minorca as a friendly naval base, to France and her associates?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no such offer was made, and, therefore, no communications on the subject have passed between them and the French Government.

Mr. Mander: Did not the Government take the trouble to make inquiries from the Spanish or French Governments as to what their attitude would be?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member asked me a question, and I said I was not aware of any such suggestion.

Mr. Mander: Did not the Spanish Government make it clear that they would be whole-heartedly on our side in the event of hostilities?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether reports received from His Majesty's representatives in Spain contain information on the activities of German technicians on or near the Mediterranean coast or Northern Spain; and, if so, will such information be available to Members of the House?

Mr. Butler: Reports from His Majesty's representatives are frequently received by my Noble Friend, but they must of their nature remain confidential.

Mr. Davidson: While recognising that such reports may be confidential, may I ask whether they indicate Italian cooperation with German technicians in their activities, and, if so, will such activities be liable to be discussed under Annexe 2 of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. Butler: I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member with regard to this information, and I will certainly examine the point he put to me, which is one of some detail.

Mr. Leach: Can the hon. Gentleman say why his Department are worse informed than the Press on this matter?

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Apart from detail, cannot the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Italian intervention is still proceeding? Surely that is simple information?

Mr. Butler: But that is not the question on the Paper.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that nothing must be done to upset the dictators in any way?

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have recently made representations to both sides in Spain with a view to obtaining a settlement of the Spanish dispute?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that it was generally understood that the Anglo-Italian Agreement was ratified because of the settlement of the Spanish dispute, can the Under-Secretary indicate why His Majesty's Government have made no such approach?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Member knows, His Majesty's Government are only too anxious to see an end to this dispute, but they have not found a suitable opportunity for taking a step of the kind which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Davidson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the questions.

Mr. Neil Maclean: This is only the second supplementary question on this point.

Mr. Garro Jones: When it becomes necessary to diminish the number of supplementary questions asked, has it not always been the tradition of the House to draw the line at the second supplementary question, and that every hon. Member has by long tradition and practice been entitled to ask two supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: The number of supplementary questions to be asked must be left to my discretion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to invite any German Ministers to come to this country to return the visits to Germany; and which Ministers it is proposed to invite?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 21st November, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Is it not clear that a very warm welcome will be given in this country to the Prime Minister's friends from Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWS REEL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister why representations were recently made by His Majesty's Government to the American Embassy for the withdrawal from a Paramount news reel of items contributed by Mr. Wickham Steed and Mr. A. J. Cummings?

Sir J. Simon: His Majesty's Government considered that certain passages in the news reel referred to, which was being shown at the time of the Prime Minister's conversations with Herr Hitler at Godesberg, might have a prejudicial effect upon the negotiations. The Ambassador of the United States, I understand, thought it right to communicate this consideration to a member of the Hays organisation which customarily deals with matters of

this kind and which brought it to the attention of Paramount News, who, from a sense of public duty in the general interest, decided to make certain excisions from the news reel.

Mr. Mander: Can the Chancellor quote any precedent for this form of Government censorship of news reels in this country?

Sir J. Simon: I do not know that a precedent was needed. The view one takes on this matter probably depends on whether one wished it to have a prejudicial effect on negotiations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that four films of the "March of Time" have been suppressed in the last six months when there was no crisis, and that this Government censorship is very much resented in the country?

Sir J. Simon: I do not know of the other cases, but in the present case His Majesty's Government are grateful to the Ambassador of the United States, and I am glad that the Ambassador and ourselves were in complete accord.

Mr. Shinwell: Before His Majesty's Government establish a censorship ought not this House to be consulted?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will not the Chancellor arrange for some means by which a full disclosure can be made to the House of what has been the practice of the Government in the matter of censorship?

Sir Percy Harris: As there is no precedent, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the censorship will not be used in other cases?

Sir J. Simon: A censorship, I should have thought, means the exercise of some compulsory power. There was nothing of that sort in the present case. Representation was made to the Ambassador of a friendly Government who was good enough, and thought it right to take action tending to promote European peace.

Mr. Mander: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will take an early opportunity of calling attention to this and other efforts at censorship by the Government recently.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES (WOMEN).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister particulars of any further decision arrived at by the Government with reference to the admission of women to the diplomatic and/or consular services?

Mr. Butler: There has been no further decision. Women are not eligible for admission into the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and the views of His Majesty's Government remain as stated in the White Paper (Cmd. 5166) issued in April, 1936.

Mr. Day: Have any reports been received as to the success of woman diplomats in other countries?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: The Minister must know that many women are more reliable than men?

Captain McEwen: Will His Majesty's Government think twice before admitting to the Diplomatic and Consular services an addition of such doubtful value?

Miss Rathbone: May we not infer that new blood is needed in the Diplomatic service from the fact that the Prime Minister has thought it necessary to act outside that service in his recent negotiations with foreign Powers?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the inference of the last question. The personnel accompanying the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Paris will show that that view of the situation is unfounded.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, following the recent settlement of the Polish and Hungarian minority questions in Czechoslovakia, Germany and Italy have given a guarantee to Czechoslovakia, as undertaken by them in the Annex to the Munich Agreement?

Mr. Butler: Although the new frontiers of Czechoslovakia have now been generally settled, they have not in all cases been finally delimited. The undertaking of Germany and Italy to guarantee Czechoslovakia has not yet taken effect, nor have there so far been any exchanges of views with these two Governments as to the manner in which the proposed

guarantees should be combined and as to the conditions in which they should operate.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present situation in the Ruthenian districts of Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Prague recently reported that normal conditions prevailed in the interior of Ruthenia, but that there had been incidents with armed bands on the Polish and Hungarian frontiers.

Mr. Henderson: Does the moral guarantee which was given in this House by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence recently apply to the present borders of Czechoslovakia, including this province of Ruthenia?

Mr. Butler: The position in this regard remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.

Mr. Benn: Can the Under-Secretary tell us what is the meaning of the guarantee which is morally in force, as stated by Ministers?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will have had an opportunity of studying the words of my right hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether the conversations in Paris will include discussion of the guarantee of the new frontiers of Czechoslovakia; and whether it is considered that that guarantee is now practicable in view of the alterations which have occurred to the frontiers proposed by the Munich Agreement?

Sir J. Simon: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 21st November. As regards the second part of the question, the Munich Agreement did not propose any definitive frontiers for Czechoslovakia.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the frontiers of Czechoslovakia which are now emerging are completely different from those that were envisaged, and have the Government received any reports from the Committee of Imperial Defence as to the practicability of defending the new frontiers?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot answer the last part of the supplementary question. In regard to the first part, the line of the frontiers is not definitive in connection with the Munich Agreement, and therefore the second part of the original question is as I have answered it.

Mr. Mander: Will the guarantee apply to the new motor road which is to go throughout the whole length of Czechoslovakia? May I have an answer, as it is an important matter?

Sir J. Simon: I regret I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, because it does not seem to me to have any bearing on the question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: There are 99 questions on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he has caused any representations to be made to the Japanese Government at the refusal of postal facilities for British newspapers in the occupied area of North China?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The newspapers affected are the "Tsingtao Times" and the "Peking and Tientsin Times" and representations have been made to the Japanese authorities.

Mr. Hannah: Is not this matter of great importance in view of the standing of the British newspapers concerned?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to say that as regards the "Tsingtao Times" deliveries are proceeding smoothly except for a little interference which has been brought to the notice of the authorities.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the Japanese Government are following the example of our Government in suppressing newspapers?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the pressure which is being exerted by the Japanese upon the Chinese bankers to withdraw their silver reserve deposits from British banks; and whether he will protest against this interference with British banking business?

Mr. Butler: I have not been able to identify the deposits which my hon.

Friend has in mind, since I have no knowledge of any silver reserve deposited in British banks in those parts of China which are controlled by the Japanese.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the recent discussion between the British Ambassador and General Chiang Kai-Shek at a town in Central China; and whether this interview was sought on the instruction of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador recently visited Central and Western China in the course of his duties, in order to maintain contact with the members of the Chinese Government. During his visit he had an interview with General Chiang Kai-Shek when various aspects of Sino-British relations were discussed. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Henderson: Are His Majesty's Government willing to act as mediators in this dispute?

Mr. Butler: We shall naturally consider any suggestion made to us by both sides.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government consider the Japanese reply to the British Note concerning interference with British shipping on the Yangtze as satisfactory; and, if not, what further action is being taken in the matter?

Mr. Butler: This matter is at present under consideration by my Noble Friend, and I am not in a position to make any statement.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Have the Government any proof that the statement that there is no discrimination is correct?

Mr. Butler: I will investigate the point which the hon. Member puts.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the date when he will be able to give information?

Mr. Butler: I hope as soon as a decision has been reached.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a satisfactory reply from the Japanese Government on the matters raised in the protests made by His Majesty's Government on 31st December, 1937, and 5th, 6th, and 11th April, 1938,


in connection with cases of assault by Japanese against British subjects in the International Settlement at Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is continuing to press for satisfaction in all outstanding cases of importance.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have we received any satisfaction in this matter?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I am glad to say that there has been an improvement in the relations between the British and Japanese authorities in Shanghai.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has there been any case in which satisfaction or compensation has been given?

Mr. Butler: It would depend upon the particular case to which the hon. Member was referring.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Any case?

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the anxiety of the British community in Tientsin at the increasing restrictions which are being imposed by the Japanese on legitimate British trade in North China by currency and export regulations, freight monopoly, and control of advertising by the suppression of the independent Chinese Press; and whether he can give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will give the strongest possible support to British bankers and merchants in North China in the difficult situation in which they are placed?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are aware of the difficulties confronting British interests in North China. They have taken, and will continue to take, such action as they consider appropriate to protect those interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the depreciation of investments in Brazilian public loans and railway capital raised in London, amounting to approximately £100,000,000, and the disinclination of British commerce to embark upon further transaction with Brazil involving credit, he will reduce British ambassadorial representations in Brazil to the status of

a consulate pending an agreed debt arrangement between the Brazilian authorities and the British Government acting on behalf of British subjects who have entrusted their savings to Brazil?

Mr. Butler: According to a recent published statement by the President of Brazil, the Brazilian Government continues to be ready to examine with the interested parties any practical scheme which may benefit the creditors of Brazil and respect the interests of the national economy of that country. As I informed my hon. Friend on 20th June last, His Majesty's Government will continue to give their fullest support to the Council of Foreign Bondholders in their efforts to secure acceptable proposals from the Brazilian Government. My Noble Friend does not, however, consider that the interests of the British holders of Brazilian loans and investments would be served by a reduction in the status of the representation of this country in Brazil.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that delays of three months and over occur in the issue of visas to Jewish children from Germany after all guarantees have been given; will he state the reasons for the delay; and can the business be expedited, in view of the increasing danger to the children?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the 17th instant to a question by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). As regards the latter part of the question, a scheme has been agreed with the Inter-Aid Committee for Children to eliminate all delay so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned in the grant of facilities to children who are to be brought to this country for educational purposes under the care of the committee.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only last week I gave him the names of three children whom we have been trying to get out of Germany since August, and can he do nothing to hasten cases of that sort?

Mr. Lloyd: There have been some delays in the past particularly in regard to private persons who wished to take children and whose cases were referred to the Inter-Aid Committee. I would point out that the situation has now been transformed by the new arrangements explained by my right hon. Friend, and that we had a meeting with the Inter-Aid Committee at the Home Office yesterday at which detailed arrangements were agreed.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does that mean that we must apply all over again in the case of these children? Why should there be any reference to the Inter-Aid Committee when there are people ready to take the children and give the necessary guarantees?

Mr. Lloyd: It will not be necessary to make another application for them, but I have replied to the question on the Paper, and indicated that large-scale arrangements have now been made to deal with this problem.

Sir P. Harris: Has the Department considered expanding this section of the Home Office owing to the increased amount of work, so that the work may be expedited? Some of these cases occupy three months. Undoubtedly that is not entirely the fault of the Department. Can there be some indication that the staff of the Department will be increased?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, the reply of my right hon. Friend to which I referred in the first part of my answer indicated that an expansion was taking place at the Home Office.

Colonel Wedgwood: But is the delay due to the hon. Gentleman's Department, or to the Foreign Office, or to the Woburn House Committee?

Mr. Lloyd: I should not like to allocate to any particular body responsibility for the delay in the last few months. It was admitted by my right hon. Friend, and it was due to the great pressure of the work. Now there is to be an expansion at the Home Office and the Inter-Aid Committee are also greatly expanding their staff.

Mr. Alexander: Will the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs take note of the fact that there is great pressure in the embassies abroad, especially in Berlin, and help them there if he can?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether a settlement in the Ethiopian conflict has yet been reached by the Italian and Ethiopian Governments in accordance with international law, or whether fighting still continues?

Mr. Butler: According to the information in my Noble Friend's possession, the Italian Government have now established control over Ethiopia with the exception of a particular area in which it is known that resistance is still being offered.

Mr. MacMillan: My question was whether a settlement has been reached in accordance with international law, and has the hon. Gentleman answered that point by saying that according to the information in the possession of the Foreign Office the Italian Government have established control?

Mr. Butler: I have done my best, after studying the hon. Member's question, to give him a reply, and my reply states the position as we appreciate it.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the hon. Gentleman really say whether a settlement has been reached in accordance with international law? That is the question on the Paper. I am not asking for the opinion of the hon. Member or the Government.

Mr. Butler: I have given my answer by stating the position as seen by His Majesty's Government at the present time.

Mr. MacMillan: On a point of Order. The question on the Paper, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, or his deputy, asks for an answer which must be based upon the recognised authority in international law, which is the League of Nations, and the hon. Member replies by giving the opinion of His Majesty's Government. I want to know whether the settlement is recognised in terms of international law?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has received a reply, but it is the experience of hon. Members that replies are not always satisfactory to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH SHIP (ATTACK, NORTH SEA).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent attack on a Spanish ship off Cromer, he will take steps to prevent missiles from guns fired in similar circumstances causing death or injury to British subjects in the United Kingdom or destruction or damage to their property situated there?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend's information is that no British subject was killed or injured and no British property damaged in the course of the incident referred to. My Noble Friend does not, therefore, consider that any action is called for on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that privateers are being fitted out in many German ports, and, in view of that fact, and also in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have not seen fit to extend the three-mile limit, is this aspect of the question not now an acute menace to this country, and are the Government content to do nothing?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept the hon. Member's view that it is an acute menace to this country, but if he has any information not in our possession to bear out his contention, I shall be only too glad to examine it.

Mr. Alexander: Had it been arranged for British warships to be in attendance?

Mr. Butler: Two British warships proceeded immediately to the scene of the incident.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not the fact that the Socialist party want to go to war with everybody everywhere?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not this illegal privateering a violation of the rules of international law and a grave menace to British shipping in time of peace and in time of war?

Mr. Butler: It would be advisable to examine each incident and find out whether it was a breach of international law or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MOBILISATION (COST).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the

Admiralty what was the approximate cost of the recent mobilisation of the Fleet and all measures taken consequent thereto?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): The cost of the recent mobilisation of the Fleet and of measures taken consequent thereto, apart from certain expenditure on measures for which provision would in any case have been required later, is provisionally assessed at a little less than £1,000,000.

Mr. Davidson: Does that figure include the loss of prestige?

Sir A. Southby: Was the mobilisation carried out smoothly and efficiently?

Mr. Shakespeare: We have been at some pains to make inquiries, and I think it is fair to say that our plans went smoothly and efficiently. We have had very little complaint.

PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government have considered the desirability of re-opening Pembroke Dockyard; and what decision has been come to?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, in view of the fact that the Pembroke Dock is far removed from areas likely to be bombed and possesses considerable natural safeguards, he will consider the re-opening thereof?

Mr. Shakespeare: The present position at Pembroke is that the greater part of the old dockyard is used by the Air Ministry as a base for flying-boat squadrons, and part is leased to Messrs. Wards, a firm of shiphreakers. Arrangements have been made for certain land to be used by the Admiralty for storage purposes, but after a careful examination it has been decided not to re-open the establishment as a Naval dockyard under present circumstances.

Sir A. Knox: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this dockyard would certainly be required in time of war, and that it would be better to prepare it in time of peace? Has it not been absolutely dismantled since 1926, and could not steps be taken to prepare it?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is a very big question. I think I can say simply, that in time of peace this dockyard is surplus to our requirements, and that in time of war there are docking facilities available for our purpose in the West of England and on the North-East coast of Ireland.

Major Lloyd George: Ought not this question be reconsidered, in view of the importance of the approaches to our Western ports in time of war, and bearing in mind that in the last War we had this vital area of Pembroke Dock and also places in Ireland which are no longer available?

Mr. Shakespeare: All these questions were taken into account when we considered the question of re-opening, and, admittedly, the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman were factors in favour of re-opening. On the other hand, other factors, into which the House will not expect me to go, are, in our view, decisive against re-opening.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the large number of young people in this area? What steps are the Government taking to see that they receive adequate training in case the dockyard should be re-opened?

ROSYTH DOCKYARD (SWIMMING POOL AND GYMNASIUM).

Mr. McLean Watson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a beginning has yet been made with the erection of the swimming pool at Rosyth Dockyard; and whether any progress is being made for the provision of a gymnasium?

Mr. Shakespeare: Tenders have been received and are under consideration. It has, however, not yet been possible to place a contract.

Mr. Watson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I last had this question on the Order Paper I was informed that the erection of the swimming pool would be begun last month, that is, October?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. I think that the reply was to the effect that the contract would be placed in October, but the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, realises that at that time the staff were engaged on more important matters.

FILMS.

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of occasions during the last two years that assistance has been given to various film companies by his Department for the production of films of a naval character; whether this permission included the rights to photograph ships at sea and also to take photographs on board; and whether he will give particulars of the general charge that is made for such facilities?

Mr. Shakespeare: Assistance has been given in the production of three films of a naval character during the last two years. Facilities were afforded to photograph ships at sea and also to take photographs on board. Out-of-pocket expenses only were charged in respect of these facilities.

Mr. Day: Are these films subject to censorship by the Admiralty?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Are the films now being shown in the schools of the country?

Mr. Day: Do we understand that they are shown without censorship?

Mr. Shakespeare: One of them was sponsored by the Navy League and was of advantage in recruiting.

Mr. Mander: Has the American Ambassador been consulted?

RETIRED OFFICERS.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether retired officers called up for service have to provide duplicate sets of uniform, one for use when ashore and a different one for use when afloat?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir. They are required to provide the uniform appropriate to the appointment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that after having the rank of Commander officers may be appointed to the rank of Lieutenant-Commander, and that, therefore, they have to change their uniform?

Mr. Shakespeare: As I understand the position, a Commander on the retired list will have the uniform of the rank he held when on the active list. In that case it will be the appropriate uniform.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If these officers are permitted to hold the rank of Commander and have the uniform of that


rank, is it not obvious that when called up for service they will have to alter that uniform and go back to a lower rank?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir. If an officer is on the active list as a Lieutenant-Commander and on the retired list as Commander, and he has kept his active service uniform, he will wear that.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the terms of the old regulations governing the employment of officers on the retired list in the event of their being called up for service?

Mr. Shakespeare: My hon. and gallant Friend will find these Regulations set out on pages 107–9 of the Appendix to the Navy List, a copy of which will be found in the Library of the House.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recent decision about the rank in which officers on the retired list who have received promotion on their retirement are to be appointed, in an emergency, is interpreted as meaning that such an officer will never be re-employed in the rank he holds on the retired list?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir. The officer will be appointed in the higher rank, whenever the higher rank would not be inappropriate to the appointment. As far as practicable, the Admiralty would avail themselves of the services of the more senior officers for such appointments.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman have inquiries made in the office of the Second Sea-Lord whether it is not possible that, as a rule, officers shall be appointed in the rank which they hold on the retired list rather than the active list?

Commander Marsden: Is it not clear that in whatever rank an officer is reemployed he gets the pay of his higher rank?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so, because he comes from the retired list and his reemployment is of great assistance to the Navy. I give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that in every case where it is possible to give a higher rank to a retired officer coming back to the active list to be re-employed, that will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA.

NATIONAL PARK.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Pahang proposes to alter the boundaries of the King George V National Park in Malaya by cutting off practically all the low-lying land essential to the well-being of some of the animals which the park is designed to preserve; and whether he will make representations to the Government of Malaya with a view to the preservation of the original boundaries?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have ascertained from the High Commissioner that the Government of Pahang have not the intention suggested. The rights of certain Malays which are alleged to have been disturbed by the proposed boundary are under examination, but no substantial, if indeed any, modification of the boundary will be required in that respect.

Sir A. Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the cause of the delay, since the area of this national park was settled as long ago as 1926, and that his predecessor stated, two-and-a-half years ago, that the matter was being actively considered?

Mr. MacDonald: I am considering this matter, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of Malaya, in view of the strong demand there for increased self-government?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. I am not aware that there is any strong demand for increased self-government in Malaya.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA.

TRANSPORT SERVICE.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why, when creating a passenger transport monopoly to increase safety on certain omnibus routes in Uganda, an exclusive licence was given to the alien Overseas Motor Transport Company, Limited, to the detriment of


Baganda omnibus owners, creating a public service Baganda Government?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The object of creating the monoply in Uganda was to ensure a safe and satisfactory passenger transport service for the general public. Tenders to operate the monopoly were invited over a period of two months; and I am satisfied that, in awarding the contract finally to the British Overseas Motor Transport Company, the Protectorate Government took the course best calculated to serve the public interest.

Mr. McEntee: Was it the lowest tender?

Mr. MacDonald: It was the best, having regard to all the circumstances, but I am not certain that it was the lowest as regards the amount.

CHILD LABOUR.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the anxiety expressed by the Governor of Uganda regarding child labour, any legislation is proposed to limit it in agriculture and to prohibit it in factories?

Mr. M. MacDonald: By Ordinance No. 18 of 1938, enacted last month, the age below which the employment of children in industrial undertakings is prohibited was raised to 16 years. It is the intention of the Government of Uganda to consolidate the labour legislation of the Protectorate, and the Governor has intimated that the consolidating Ordinance will include provisions regulating the employment of children in all other forms of employment, including agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

HANNA ASFOUR.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Hanna Asfour, legal adviser of the Palestine Arab Workers' Society, was arrested in Haifa at the beginning of this month; whether he is still interned in a concentration camp at Acre; what was the reason for his arrest; and whether, in view of his important services to the Arab labour movement, he may be set at liberty?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have no information on the matter, but I have asked the High Commissioner for a report.

LONDON DISCUSSIONS.

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make regarding the proposed discussions on Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. Formal invitations to send representatives to the proposed discussions have now been issued to Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Transjordan, and to the Jewish Agency. We are still in communication with the Yemen on the matter. As regards the Palestinian Arab delegation, I have informed the High Commissioner that His Majesty's Government desire that all the important leading groups in the country should be represented, and have asked him to endeavour to arrange for this in consultation with the groups or individuals concerned, and to report to me as soon as possible. I have already informed the House of His Majestys' Government's attitude towards the present Mufti of Jerusalem. But as regards individuals who are at present deported or are the subject of an exclusion order, if, as a result of the High Commissioner's consultations, it is proposed that any of these should be amongst the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs, His Majesty's Government will give facilities to these individuals to proceed to London for the purpose of the discussions.

Mr. Grenfell: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the first assembly to take place, and how long does he expect the investigation or inquiry to last?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot give any date until the delegations have been finally fixed up, but I hope the discussions will start within the next few weeks; and, as was stated in the statement made by His Majesty's Government, we do not intend that the discussions shall last for more than what is a reasonable period to allow for some understanding or agreement being reached in that period. If some such understanding is not reached, then the Government, in the light of their examination of the question and of the discussions, will announce the policy that they propose to pursue.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations as to the advantages which would accrue if the Mufti were allowed to be present at this conference; and is


the decision which he has announced concerning the attendance of the Mufti to be regarded as final?

Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the first part, I have received a good many expressions of view from individuals, some in favour and some against, but I have received no official representation.

Mr. Mander: In view of the great interest of this matter to the United States. will not the Minister consider the advisability of inviting representatives—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

GERMAN NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.

Mr. Sandys (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statements which appeared in the Government-controlled German Press yesterday, accusing British troops and police in Palestine of looting, rape, murder and of torturing their prisoners; and whether it is proposed to instruct His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin to make a protest to the German Government and to ask that these unwarranted allegations affecting the honour and good name of His Majesty's Forces should immediately be denied in those organs of the German Press in which they have been published?

Sir J. Simon: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I will reply. There is, of course, no truth whatever in this newspaper story. I would repeat the observation made by the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on Monday, that the German Government must be well aware of the unfortunate effect on Anglo-German relations of such articles.

WEST INDIES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, now in the West Indies dealing with social and economic problems, include questions of the franchise and of federation?

Mr. M. MacDonald: In so far as these questions prove to be relevant to the economic and social problems of the West Indies, they are covered by the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Adams: If these questions are not raised in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman take them into consideration when he is considering the report of the Commission?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I cannot, of course, extend the terms of reference of the Commission.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (HEALTH SERVICES).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to take immediate steps to deal with the under-nourishment and disease referred to in the report of Major Orde Brown on Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. The conditions to which Major Orde Brown directed attention, together with the proposals for the extension of the Northern Rhodesia health services put forward by Sir Alan Pim and Mr. Milligan in their recent report, are receiving active consideration. A disease survey of the territory is being undertaken, and campaigns against syphilis, yaws and skin affections are being initiated. Additional provision for health services will be made in the 1939 Estimates; and I can assure the hon. Member that, in considering questions of health, the Government are fully alive to the importance of securing an adequate standard of nourishment.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that proper dealing with this matter would mean that all these people would be more likely to remain thirled to the British Empire?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware that there is any desire among the people of Northern Rhodesia to be anywhere but inside the British Empire.

Mr. Paling: Have there not been a great many of these reports, all of the same character, within the last nine or o years, and have we not always been promised that the matter shall receive active consideration? Has anything really substantial yet been done?

Mr. MacDonald: Practical steps have already been taken, and in the Budget for 1939 money will be provided for additional practical action.

Mr. Paling: In view of the enormous size of the problem, are the steps as big as may be required to deal efficiently with the situation?

Mr. MacDonald: That may be a matter of opinion, but we are doing everything possible within our financial resources.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

LAND LEGISLATION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to delay the operation of recent legislation in respect to native and European land in Kenya; and whether the policy of eviction of native people from the European Highlands continues to have the support of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The two Bills dealing with native and other lands have been passed by the Legislative Council of Kenya, but they have not yet received the Governor's assent, and I am not yet in a position to say when they will be brought into operation. As regards the second part of the question, there has been no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter. I am, however, in communication with the Governor in regard to the arrangements for providing the natives who are removed from the Highlands with satisfactory alternative accommodation elsewhere.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when the legislation reaches him and the Governor has given his assent, bear in mind the very considerable native opposition that there is to it; and will he, while he is in communication with the Kenya Government, ask them to put a stop to these brutal evictions until further inquiry has been made into the matter? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that these matters are receiving the attention of Middle Europe and are used to prejudice British Colonial administration in the eyes of other countries?

Mr. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary

question, I have that matter continuously in mind. With regard to the second part. I am not aware of any brutal eviction. If the hon. Member wants to put before me any information that I have not got, I will gladly consider it.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the present orders for evictions shall be stopped pending inquiry? I have already given him considerable information regarding the thousands of cases of evictions which are going on at the present time.

Mr. MacDonald: I am giving close attention to the information which the hon. Member has already given me, but, as far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the action which is being taken at the present time is proper action. So far as future action is concerned, I am, as I have said, in communication with the Governor on the matter.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not the fact that the Colonial Secretary cannot do two jobs?

LAND BANK.

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the inability of the Land Bank in Kenya to lend at a low rate of interest and the consequent departure of settlers from their holdings and the abandonment of thousands of acres in the Colony; and whether he will consider measures to provide agricultural credit commensurate with the requirements of the situation by placing Kenya, in respect of Land Bank assistance, in the same position as other overseas agricultural countries, particularly in view of the scale of present agricultural indebtedness, which, for white settlers alone, is already estimated at £4,000,000?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not agree that the rate of interest on loans charged by the Land Bank is the cause of the departure of settlers from their holdings. The present capital of the Kenya Land Bank
is £750,000. I am considering whether there is any justification for making a larger sum available.

Mr. Paling: If it be the fact that, as stated in the question, thousands of settlers are leaving their holdings, is there any reason to evict native landholders as evidenced in connection with the last question?

Mr. MacDonald: I have no evidence of any large-scale abandonment of holdings in Kenya, though there has been some, owing to the poor price of coffee.

Mr. Riley: Is any alternative provision being made for those settlers who are leaving their holdings?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that question.

CHILD LABOUR.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Committee on Child Labour in Kenya has yet presented its report; and, if not, when this report is likely to be ready?

Mr. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I returned on 16th November to a question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), to which I have at present nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON.

CONSTITUTION.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered representations from members of the State Council in Ceylon regarding the present Constitution; and, if so, would he communicate the nature of his reply to the House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a number of questions on 16th November.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the statement in question be printed for the information of the House? Will it be published as a White Paper?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Sir A. Knox: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation representing the minorities in Ceylon who are definitely opposed to these changes?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir; I have had an opportunity of coming into touch with the representatives of those communities.

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE.

Commander Marsden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action of the Board of Ministers in Ceylon has been taken on the report of the commission that inquired into the

order of transportation made on Mr. Bracegirdle, particularly in regard to the recommendation of the commissioners that the services of the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. P. M. Banks, be retained?

Mr. Annesley Somerville: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the nature of the communication received from the Government of Ceylon with regard to the services of the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Banks; and whether Mr. Banks has applied, on his own initiative, for a transfer from Ceylon or for retirement from the public service, or does he contemplate the transfer of the Inspector-General of Police from Ceylon?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not aware what action, if any, has been taken by the Board of Ministers on the report of the commission. The Governor has informed Ministers that, in view of the findings of the commission, he cannot entertain their previous request for the removal of Mr. Banks. So far as I am aware, Mr. Banks has not applied for a transfer from Ceylon or for permission to retire from the public service. Like other officers in the Colonial Police Service, his claims to promotion are reviewed as occasion offers, but his transfer is not at the moment in contemplation.

Mr. A. Somerville: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the professional or ex-professional standing of the Commissioners composing the Commission appointed to inquire into the allegations against the Inspector-General of Police in Ceylon, Mr. Banks; and whether he is aware that the Commission rejected the evidence of the Minister of Home Affairs, Leader of the House, but that the State Council of Ceylon has since adopted a resolution expressing their continued confidence in this Minister?

Mr. MacDonald: The Commission consisted of the present Chief Justice, a retired Senior Puisne Judge, and a retired Solicitor-General of Ceylon. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Somerville: In view of the fact that the Commission vindicated Mr. Banks of the accusation made against him and recommended that he should be


retained in his present post, will the right hon. Gentleman see that he is so retained?

Mr. MacDonald: My hon. Friend will find that I answered that on an earlier question.

EUROPEAN OFFICERS.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British holding posts under the Government of Ceylon have retired prematurely or been sent away since the new Constitution was inaugurated in 1931; and how many British heads of departments in the Government of Ceylon have been replaced by Sinhalese during the same period?

Mr. M. MacDonald: A list received at the end of 1935 showed that 160 European officers had retired prematurely under the special regulations made under the Order in Council of 1931. The number of retirements since that date is small, but I have no summarised statement available. European officers have been succeeded by Ceylonese at the head of six departments since 1931, and in two cases Ceylonese are acting as heads of departments pending a permanent appointment.

Mr. de Rothschild: What is the proportion of Tamils among those appointed?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on how many occasions the Ceylon State Council has refused to make financial provision for the passage of British public servants returning to Great Britain; and how many times the Governor has had to use his reserve powers to make such provision?

Mr. M. MacDonald: In each financial year since the inauguration of the new Constitution the State Council have reduced the provision for the passages of officers proceeding on leave, with the intention that leave should be granted once every five years, instead of once every four years, which is the recognised minimum for European officers of the Colonial Service. On each occasion the Governor has used his reserve powers to restore the provision.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (UNDER GROUND WIRES AND CABLES).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to setting up a Royal Commission to examine the question of placing electric wires and cables underground?

Sir J. Simon: My right hon. Friend does not consider that any good purpose would be served by referring this question to a Royal Commission.

Mr. Tinker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that electricity is the great new power of the age, and that it is becoming a general practice to carry these wires on pylons? Surely now is the time to examine the whole position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter.

Mr. H. G. Williams: If my right hon. Friend is considering the appointment of a Royal Commission, will he also consider how the public are to be compensated for the increased price which would result from the hon. Member's proposal?

Mr. Pilkington: Are any of these wires being laid underground?

Sir J. Simon: That question should be addressed to the Ministry of Transport. The supplementary question of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) deals with a matter which he has raised before, and I think he has been told by the Minister of Transport that the circumstances have been very carefully examined, and that the suggestion is not practicable.

Mr. Lawson: Was not the real answer to the effect that it was too expensive? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that there are hundreds of thousands of skilled men who could do this work, and who are now being paid for doing nothing?

Sir J. Simon: I have the original answer before me. It was as follows:
The matter has already been carefully examined, and, hearing all considerations in mind, I am satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not practicable.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to prepare for a period of national emergency and to combat existing malnutrition among the


poorer section of the community, particularly children, and in order to meet public opinion upon the subject, he will consider setting up in the near future a Ministry of Food charged to ensure the maintenance of adequate food supplies in times of war and the ready distribution of surpluses in times of peace at low prices to the poor?

Sir J. Simon: As the hon. Member is aware, the Food (Defence Plans) Department of the Board of Trade is charged with the duty of preparing plans with a view, inter alia, to the establishment of a Ministry of Food immediately on the occurrence of an emergency. I do not think that the establishment of such a Ministry as a permanent part of our peacetime organisation would be justified, either for purposes of defence or for the other purposes referred to in the question.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disparity of prices between the point of production and the point of distribution, and of the amount of wastage of perishable foodstuffs that are produced and never used; and is he prepared to give the House an outline of the plans which the Government have in mind in case of a national emergency?

Sir J. Simon: A national emergency is rather a different question. I have answered the question of the hon. Member as to the arguments for establishing now a Ministry of Food.

Mr. Kirby: Will not the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government be frank with the House and inform the House as to the outline of the plans which the Government have in mind in case of a national emergency? I think we are entitled to know.

Sir J. Simon: That really is rather a different question.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the Royal Commission on the Geographic Distribution of Population will present its report; and whether it is proposed to issue an interim report?

Sir J. Simon: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the replies which the Prime Minister gave on 1st November to the hon. Members for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson).

Mr. Adams: In view of the protracted nature of the studies of this Royal Commission, is it not intended, in the general interest, to issue an interim report?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answers given by the Prime Minister, he will see that those answers dealt with this very question.

PEACE AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to grant time in the near future for the discussion of the Motion on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow:

["That this House assures the Prime Minister of its unqualified support for his successful efforts to preserve peace and his determination to strengthen the defences and improve the standard of living of the Nation."]?

Sir J. Simon: While fully appreciating the desire of the hon. Member to give greater publicity to the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour), the Prime Minister regrets that he can hold out no hope of special facilities being given for its discussion.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister reluctant to have this Motion discussed because of the comparatively small number of signatures, or is it due to recent events in totalitarian States?

Mr. Benn: Would the Chancellor consider publication of the names of the hon. Members on the Government side who have failed, or been unwilling, to append their names to this Motion of support?

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COLLEGE.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the organisation and conduct of the Imperial Defence College is subject to the direction of his Department?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The supervision of the College for professional purposes is vested in the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, but the Admiralty is responsible for its administration.

Wing-Commander James: Is there any reason why one of the three Services should be more exempt than the other two from the full control by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence of what is, after all, the only fully co-ordinated service organisation?

Sir T. Inskip: The Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee is the appropriate body to deal with the Imperial Defence College on the professional side; but, of course, if any question arose which was a matter for a higher authority it would be dealt with either by myself or by the Prime Minister.

Wing-Commander James: Then should all questions relating to policy be addressed to my right hon. Friend?

Sir T. lnskip: I cannot go so far as to say "all questions," because there may be some which would require to be addressed to the First Lord.

MALTA (DEFENCE).

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence which Department or Departments were responsible for the failure to make provision for the evacuation of the families of Service personnel from Malta during the September crisis, or to make provision for their safety upon the island; and whether he is aware of the anxiety thus caused, especially to personnel sent away upon duty from this station, at that time?

Sir T. Inskip: I cannot agree that there was any failure to make provision for the safety of the civil population at Malta during the September crisis. In fact, a scheme was ready covering all aspects of defence. Such schemes are prepared and kept under constant review both locally and by the Colonial Office and Service Departments, and are co-ordinated by the Committee of Imperial Defence. In the case of Malta, the defence scheme contained comprehensive measures for the protection of the civil population from air attack, either by the provision of

shelters or by evacuation to less dangerous parts of Malta. Families of Service personnel were, of course, included in the scope of these measures.

Wing-Commander James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 28th September a fixed signal was made which informed absent personnel that no provision had been made for evacuating their families in the event of hostilities?

Sir T. Inskip: I should like further information about that before I can express an opinion.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the appearance of this question on the Order Paper and the supplementary question as a fair sample of the discretion of Government supporters?

SIERRA LEONE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Sierra Leone proposes in its legislation validating acts committed under the Sherbro Judicial Ordinance, 1923, to make this legislation retrospective, and thereby to indemnify public officers for action in demolishing certain private buildings; and whether he will issue instructions for the suspension of the proposed legislation?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed that legislation of the nature referred to has been passed by the Legislative Council of Sierra Leone after a free vote, when the majority of the Unofficial Members voted for the Bill. I am expecting shortly an explanatory report giving details of the legislation.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of that when it comes?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether this legislation is retrospective?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, it is retrospective.

GIBRALTAR (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies


whether he is satisfied that the steps taken in Gibraltar to protect the civil population from air-raids and gas attacks were adequate; and, if not, whether he will give immediate attention to the problem of making some provision in this respect?

Mr. M. MacDonald: In Gibraltar, as elsewhere, the crisis revealed deficiencies in the organisation for the protection of the civil population. A special Air-Raid Precautions Officer has been sent to the Colony from England, and the whole question is receiving the active consideration of the Colonial Government.

NYASALAND.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposals made in the report on the financial position and further development of Nyasaland are under consideration; and whether it is proposed to take immediate steps to carry out any of the recommendations?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I have now received from the Governor of Nyasaland a preliminary statement of the Protectorate Government's attitude towards the recommendations in the Report. They are disposed to accept the majority of the recommendations, but a number of the more important proposals are still under consideration. I am expecting a further report from the Governor shortly.

Mr. Ridley: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to state the proposals that it is intended to make?

Mr. MacDonald: I could not give any approximate date for that, but if the hon. Member will keep in touch with me, perhaps I can let him know when a question will elicit that answer.

TANGANYIKA.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of Europeans and what was the number of Germans in Tanganyika in August, 1914; and what are the numbers of Europeans and of Germans in Tanganyika now?

Mr. M. MacDonald: According to the figures of a German census taken in 1913, the number of Europeans in Tanganyika

Territory was 5,336, of whom 4,107 were Germans. At the end of 1937 the total European community was estimated to be 9,107 which included 2,981 Germans.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

RATIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many complaints he has received from commanding officers of representations made by airmen's messing committees during the last 12 months expressing their dissatisfaction over the food supply; will he give particulars of the present ration allowance supplied to Air Force mechanics; and how this amount is daily expended?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Complaints of this kind would normally be dealt with by the airmen's messing committees; only those that cannot be settled locally are referred to the Air Ministry. There is no record of any such complaints having been so referred during the last 12 months. The current daily ration entitlement value for airmen in mess varies between approximately 1s. 2½d. and 1s. 5½d. according to the messing strength. Of this, approximately 9d. a day is expended on the purchase, at contract cost, of the principal components of the ration; the balance is expended on miscellaneous foodstuffs chosen by the airmen's messing committee.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether this ration allowance is made known to men on recruitment?

AIR MINISTRY BUILDINGS.

Commander Marsden: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of air-raid risks in Central London, it is still considered advisable to locate in Berkeley Square the new offices connected with the Air or other Ministry?

Sir K. Wood: Additional accommodation is required immediately to relieve the congestion that now exists in Air Ministry buildings, and to provide for further expansion. It is also essential under present circumstances that the new premises shall be within reasonable distance of the headquarters of the Department, which must remain for the present in the Kingsway area. The decision to move part of the staff to Berkeley Square


House was taken after full consideration of all relevant factors, including that referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, because it was the only large building which met our immediate requirements both as regards space and location.

PROPOSED STATION, COLTISHALL, NORFOLK.

Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Air what decision has been taken with regard to making an aerodrome at Scottow, Norfolk; the purpose of this scheme; and the date when work will begin?

Sir K. Wood: It has been decided to acquire land at Coltishall, near Scottow Hall, Norfolk, for the construction of a Royal Air Force Station as part of the approved expansion scheme, and it is expected that work will have commenced by the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

PROPOSED ABERDEEN—STORNOWAY SERVICE.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement regarding the proposed air service betwene Stornoway and the mainland?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): An application has been made by Scottish Airways, Limited, to the licensing authority for a licence for a service from Aberdeen to Stornoway via Inverness. I understand that meantime negotiations for the acquisition by Scottish Airways of a site for an aerodrome at Stornoway have reached an advanced stage: when it has been acquired the preparation of the site for use as an aerodrome will be put in hand.

Mr. MacMillan: Can the Under-Secretary inform the House when the advanced stage of negotiations is likely to be concluded, as the site was inspected in the spring and we expected that the service would start in the summer? Can he give an assurance that the matter will be expedited?

Captain Balfour: The Air Ministry inspected and advised upon the proposed aerodrome site at Stornoway in the spring

of this year, and has given the company a schedule of work to be done on the aerodrome which does not include buildings, and it will probably take nine months to put the work through.

TRANS-ATLANTIC FLIGHTS.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air how the contemplated air-mail services across the Northern Atlantic are progressing?

Captain Balfour: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) yesterday, it had been necessary to modify the provisional programme of trans-Atlantic flights which I gave in July last, in reply to the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). The Mayo Composite aircraft carried out two successful trans-Atlantic flights in July, and later a successful non-stop flight from England to South Africa. Modifications found necessary in the Albatross land-plane, and delay in the completion of the new Empire flying boat on account of urgent Service requirements, prevented the carrying out of the programme for these types. It has, therefore, been decided to defer continuation of the programme until more favourable conditions next spring, and in the meantime flight and refuelling tests are being carried out in this country.

Mr. Simmonds: Does my hon. and gallant Friend still hope that it may be possible to run a regular mail service some time during 1939?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. As I said in July, we still hope to start a regular seasonal service in 1939.

Mr. Mathers: Can the Minister say from what point in England the South African flight commenced?

Captain Balfour: The South African flight commenced by the top part taking off from the lower, but where the place was, I do not know.

Mr. Mathers: Was it not Dundee?

ST. LUCIA (LANDSLIDE).

Mr. Petherick (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make about the landslide which took place yesterday in the island of St. Lucia and caused heavy loss of life, and what action he proposes to take to help the sufferers?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I received yesterday a telegram from the Governor in which he informed me that a landslide at Bar-de L'Isle, St. Lucia, occurred on Monday morning. It was estimated that about 50 people had been killed and 40 injured. The necessary relief organisation was immediately established. Thirty-two bodies had been recovered, of which 12 had been identified. Also two of the injured died in hospital on Monday night. The condition of the remainder injured in hospital, about 20 in number, was satisfactory. Unfortunately the work of recovering the bodies had to be suspended on Monday night owing to a further landslide, but work was resumed later.
I have informed the Governor of the great regret with which I have learnt of this disaster, and asked him for his views on the question of the material assistance which may be required for the sufferers. I am sure the House will wish to express their sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who have been killed, and their good wishes to the injured for a complete recovery.

Mr. Petherick: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his prompt action in this matter, may I ask him whether he will bear foremost in his mind in relation to the victims in this disaster, that they are British subjects with us under the Crown, and that they have a claim on our sympathy at least as great as, and on our practical aid greater than, those foreign subjects whose unhappy fate has recently been exercising the attention of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Riley: Is the Minister prepared to consider making a financial grant for the relief of the sufferers at St. Lucia?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot commit myself definitely until I have received a report from the Governor.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that Wednesday is the only day on which questions addressed to the Minister of Transport have any priority? There are 17 of those questions down for to-day, but on account of the amount of time

occupied by questions on foreign affairs, which also have priority in the second place on Monday, Transport and other important questions have been squeezed out to-day. Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider rearranging the priority of foreign affairs questions on one of the two days on which they enjoy priority?

Mr. Perkins: May I also draw attention to the fact that Air questions on Wednesdays very often are not reached, and that to-day one Air question was not reached? Would it not be for the convenience of the House that we should consider altering the arrangement of the questions addressed to the first four Departments on Wednesdays, as is now done with regard to the first five Departments on Tuesdays?

Mr. Speaker: The responsibility for the arrangement of the order of questions does not primarily rest with me. It is an arrangement between the two sides of the House, for the convenience of hon. Members, to have particular days allocated for the asking of different questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

COLONIAL POLICY.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Colonial Policy, and move a Resolution.

CENSORSHIP.

Mr. Mander: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to recent action by the Government in connection with Censorship and Restrictions on the Liberty of the Press in other ways, and move a Resolution.

DISSEMINATION OF NEWS.

Mr. Bull: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Dissemination of News, and move a Resolution.

REBUILDING OF BRITAIN.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the need for the Rebuilding of Britain, and move a Resolution.

PENSIONS.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to move,
That, as the present scale of pensions is inadequate to provide a reasonable standard of life for the recipients and, moreover, does not encourage the retirement of elderly workers, and as there are anomalies in the present law which call for redress, this House is of opinion that the necessary reforms should be introduced without delay.
I have read the terms of the Motion, in order that its full implications may be understood by the House. Since it became generally known that the House of Commons had this matter up for discussion, I and many of my hon. Friends have received letters from every part of the country. Those letters, the mass of them documents of true human life and hardship, are my best reason for submitting such a Motion for the consideration of the House. I do not desire to deal with the volume of correspondence that I have received from pensioners in this country, but I should like to read part of one letter, and submit it for the sincere consideration of hon. Members:
I should like to tell you of my case. I was 65 last September, and compelled to leave work the week of my birthday. I have only an old age pension of 10s. My wife is 3½ years younger than me. Therefore, we have to live, the two of us, on 10s. per week between us—5s. for each person.
He goes on to state what many pensioners are saying to members of local authorities and to Members of Parliament:
I do not ask for public assistance, but I have not been able to save money during my working life, as my wages were barely enough to live on.
He finishes the letter by saying:
When you get old, the future seems to be not worth thinking about. I often wonder what the position would be if some of the M.Ps. in the House of Commons had to change places with us and put up with the hardships that they have imposed upon us.
I would specially recommend that last paragraph to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on the Order Paper. I do not desire to approach this question in any great party spirit, but I do desire to ask hon. Members to consider the facts placed before them. In the present unstable, ever-changing international conditions, I believe that if this House could demonstrate to the world, by passing this Motion, that democracy here and our democratic institutions are capable of protecting and advancing the social conditions

of our people, we should indicate to the world what we have always claimed, that democracy can live where dictatorship and totalitarianism must die. The passing of this Motion, as affecting our international affairs, would, therefore, be a very important gesture to the world. Because of that belief, I regret very deeply the Amendment that has been placed on the Order Paper, an Amendment that seems to indicate a complete lack of knowledge of the financial strength of this country, a complete lack of knowledge of the needs of men and women who have grown old in the building up of the industries and the wealth of this nation, and a complete lack of knowledge of the needs of widows and children who, having lost their breadwinner, are living under existing arrangements in the midst of poverty-creating restrictions and anomalies.
Therefore, at this stage I would offer to the House a very serious warning. I would offer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury this warning, in no arrogant spirit and in no spirit of intimidation. I would warn the House that the aged people of this country, the pensioners who are so thoroughly dissatisfied with their conditions, who have protested for many years against the anomalies that create poverty in their midst, are organising in every constituency in the country, that to-day they are stronger than ever they were, and that their intention is to see to it that if the present Government or any other Government will not attend to their demands or desires, they will establish a Government that will bring a decent standard of life for these people. We can accept the fact—I know that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment will accept it—that among the great majority of our pensioners bad and poverty-stricken conditions exist.
Let me place before the House some of the points relative to that statement. We have in this country many thousands of aged persons who have no hope of further employment. They are too old to be taken into industry. Many of them, without dispute, are living on a bare 10s. a week. We have many thousands of pensioners whose wives have not attained a pensionable age, not receiving 10s. each per week but receiving 10s. between them, or 5s. each per week, with no hope


of further increase. We have cases of husbands out of employment, sacked because they have reached their sixty-fifth birthday, receiving this 10s., and being forced against their will—I certainly believe that the older generation of people have an independence of spirit that must be admired by the youth of to-day—to seek public assistance relief, to crave clothing and boots from local authorities, and even to seek assistance from their own sons and daughters, who have been forced not only to become a burden on local authorities but have been forced to become a burden on sons and daughters who in their working-class life have little enough to spare for their parents. Under the present administration we have widows with families who have lost their breadwinners and have received a pension from the Government. But the administration says that as soon as the youngest member of a family leaves school the widow shall be refused her pension until she reaches the age of 55. We have thousands of cases of widows who have striven to bring up their families with a sense of decency, who have given the best that they could give to them, and when the youngest son has left school have been refused any pension whatever and have have to wait a considerable number of years before becoming entitled again to a pension.
As I have stated, the result is that these people are forced to appeal to the local authorities for public assistance. In Scotland under the present administration the number of old age pensioners seeking public assistance in money or kind has increased year by year until in May of this year there were 41,727 old age pensioners going to the local authorities to have their pensions supplemented. In Glasgow, the second city of the Empire, the number of old age pensioners seeking this relief has increased during the last three years by thousands, and in May of this year 15,246 old age pensioners in Glasgow, with the miserable pittance that they are existing on to-day, have been forced to appeal to the local authorities. In Glasgow to-day, the local authority, in supplementing widows' pensions, blind persons' pensions and old age pensions, although it has 80,000 unemployed in its midst, is paying £900,000 yearly in relief.
The task of looking after our aged workers, our widows and our blind persons

is not a local responsibility but is a national responsibility that ought not to be shirked by any Government. The local authorities are feeling the effect of this maladministration. Glasgow is only typical of local authorities throughout the country. Hon. Members on this side of the House have repeatedly asked Ministers for figures tabulating the burden placed on local authorities. I regret very much that there is not a Scottish Minister present on the Front Bench opposite during this Debate, because 36 local authorities, Tory as well as Socialist, have gone to the Secretary of State for Scotland and told him that the present position must be altered, that the Government must accept its responsibility and not place an unfair burden on local authorities, even on Tory local authorities.
Keeping these things in mind and remembering the hardship of these people, I ask the House not to accept the fallacious argument put forward in the Amendment to the Motion, that there is no money in the country to assist the unemployed. If that is the decision of the Government, if the Government have selected the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment, they have been particularly unfortunate in their choice, because I suggest that it is an insult to the House and to the old age pensioners for the Government to have selected as opponents of these old people individuals who have never known what poverty means, who have never suffered from the lack of one luxury in their lives, who have never known the scraping and striving and the rent difficulties of these people, who have never lived the lives of the old age pensioners, the widows and the unfortunate spinsters of this country. It is doubly unfortunate that the Government selection should have been those who are known for their wealth, their love of luxury and for the clubs that they are able to attend.
When appeals have been made for some betterment of the conditions of certain sections of the community, I have listened to hon. Members opposite and have heard them say that there is no money in the country for this sort of thing. With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), who has written a most excellent pamphlet on the question of old age and widows' pensions, I shall have the honour of quoting what he says:


Here is a Government that turned out a Labour Government in the past because it borrowed £100,000,000 to assist the unemployed, but on obtaining its majority in the House, the Government immediately raised £400,000,000 by borrowing and was rated in the country as first-rate statesmen.
No hon. Member can deny, if his desire is to be fair and honest in criticism or beliefs, that during the past two and a-half years we have granted vast sums in subsidies, to farmers, to brewers by derating, to shipping lines that are sometimes represented in this House, and, I would remind the House, to the beet sugar industry.

Mrs. Tate: That does not affect me.

Mr. Davidson: We have granted subsidies to almost every important industrial undertaking in the country, as stated by my hon. Friend in his excellent pamphlet. We have spent nearly £100,000,000 in buying out 3,000-odd royalty owners in the coal mines of this country. We have spent £1,200,000,000 in profits for these royalty owners in the past. The London local authority can raise loans of £80,000,000 to £200,000,000. The Government can grant £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 and can give special credit facilities to Italy. The Government then can surely find the means of raising the money to give the old age pensioners, the widows and their children a better and more decent standard of life than any they have known hitherto. The Government can raise the money if they desire to do so.
The Labour party has prepared a policy which I do not ask the Minister to accept wholesale in every word. It is a reasonable policy, a policy that should be considered, a policy that has for its object only the betterment of the standard of life of these people. We have a policy and the Government have the finance. Great Britain is not so poverty-stricken that it cannot help these people. It is a fallacy, a complete mis-statement, to say that it is impossible to raise the necessary finance because we have an armaments programme. All that is lacking is the spirit of the House of Commons to put it into operation. I trust that no word of mine will have caused any offence to hon. Members opposite. I have tried to put the case for widows and old age pensioners in as reasonable a manner as possible. They are suffering great hardships to-day. I do not propose to describe

them in any sentimental speech. I have letters from old age pensioners and I have friends in my own constituency who have lived in industry all their lives. They have produced the ships in the Clyde shipyards, built the houses, the tramways, indeed, have built the wealth of the nation. These old men who are now suffering from rheumatism and arthritis through having to work in wet weather have made possible to-day all things which we enjoy.
All that I am appealing for is that this House in its gratitude should guarantee these people a standard of life which we ourselves can consider with pride, and which can be reconciled to a civilised community. The Labour party's policy deals extensively with widows and old age pensioners, and their children, indeed, with every form of pensioner in this country. I appeal to the Minister to make a concession to-day. Let it not be said that this Government with its great majority, and simply on party lines, denies any betterment in the conditions of these people. May I ask the Minister to accept this Motion, to consider it very thoroughly, and to bring before the House adequate proposals which will ensure more happiness and comfort to these people in the future? I ask the House to give their earnest consideration to all these facts and to remember, that while many of us are young to-day, we shall grow old and reach that part of the road where the pathway is narrow and company few, and at the same time keep in mind that nothing can be more heartbreaking than an aged man and an aged woman in poverty who do not seem to think life worth living when they are old. I ask hon. Members to think of all these things and to bring into being a plan, a scheme, whereby these people will be ensured of comfort in the c10sing years of their lives.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smilth: I beg to second the Motion.
I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity of seconding the Motion, and I am sure that all my hon. Friends on this side of the House would have been equally pleased to have had the honour. I also consider it a privilege to-day to speak on behalf of the mothers, fathers and grandparents to whom we owe so much. Let me say this to hon. Members


who do not agree with us on other issues, that the Motion has been carefully worded in order to give no one an excuse for voting against it. It has been framed as reasonably as possible, yet, despite that, there is an Amendment on the Order Paper. One thing would have pleased me above all others to-day if it could have been brought about, and that is to have seen the Government benches packed with hon. and right hon. Members listening to our case. What we are putting forward in our Motion is not our pensions' scheme. I believe in adequate pensions for all at 60 years of age, but we are not pressing that to-day. All we are doing is to say that the present scale of pensions is inadequate and asking the Government to deal with the anomalies which have arisen out of the Acts as they are administered at the present time.
My case will not be a sentimental one, although we could be forgiven if we were to stress its sentimental side. My case is an economic one, based upon income facts which have been gathered out of Government publications. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has dealt with the fact that there are a number of anomalies and that 10s. a week is too low. I do not want to go over the same ground, but I must remind the House of one or two things which are sometimes forgotten. In the first place, the pension is 10s. a week at 65, but if the wife is a few years younger than the husband, all that the couple have is 10s. a week. It must be remembered that from 1929 to 1933 thousands of men in this country were thrown out of employment. Many of them went into small businesses in order to try and eke out a living, to do better for themselves than in the past, to get more security and thus avoid unemployment in the future. After they had been in business for 12 months or two years they found, despite the fact that their insurance record was good, that they were no longer qualified for the pension, and in addition there is the great tragedy that hundreds of widows whose husbands had died, found that because their husbands had not been able to retain their pension rights after going into business, they themselves were not entitled to the widows' pension.
In addition to that, few people realise the serious effect of the change made in

1928 when it was decided by the present Prime Minister that after 65 years of age a person was no longer eligible for unemployment benefit. That meant that no matter how good the insurance record of the person might be—he might never have been out of work and had paid into national health insurance from 1912 until the present time—all that he was entitled to at 65 years was the 10s. a week pension. As a result, in 1936, 214,901 old age pensioners; in 1937, 230,652; and in 1938, 232,238, had to apply for public assistance. In addition, 100,000 widows are applying for public assistance. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other day said:
I do not think that it has ever been claimed by any party that old age pensions do by themselves provide for full maintenance of persons devoid of other resources.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary what other resources can these people have? Even if they work from 14 years of age until they are 65 and save every penny possible, what other resources can they have after paying for rent, food and clothing for themselves and their children? But the Financial Secretary went on to say:
If the pension and other resources are inadequate, these people very properly have recourse to the public assistance authorities, where need is the criterion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1938; col. 197, Vol. 34o.]
That statement is an insult to the people to whom we belong. Let me give a typical instance. It is the case of a man living in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He was married in 1888. He was a miner, and, therefore, could not save much, nor could he have other resources. He worked all his life, but between 1921 and 1926 all that he and his wife had scraped together went, because of the lock-outs in which they were involved. He was a man of good principles prepared to stand up for the rights of his fellow-men, and in 1926, as many of my hon. Friends know to their cost, that man was the subject of victimisation. At 65 all that this man obtains is a pension of 10s. a week, plus charity. His wife is eight years younger and, therefore, until she reaches 65 years, all that this poor couple are entitled to get is 10s. a week old age pension. This is their budget. The other week they paid for rent, 11s. 2d.—that is a cheap rent—for electric light and gas, 2S. 6d.; coal and wood, 3s. 6d.; insurance, 1s. 6d.;


and papers, 8d.—a total of 19s. 4d. Nothing for food or clothes or shoes. The next week in order to purchase groceries they refused to pay the rent, and this is their budget. For food, 8s. 9d.; milk, 1s. 2d.; meat, 1s. 6d.—a total of 11s. 5d. That is typical of the tragedies which exist in all our industrial centres. Another man writes to me:
I am one of 20 men over 65 years of age who received notice to cease work at the colliery last May. My own position is as follows: After working in the mining industry for 47 years all that I have left is 13s. 1d. a week after paying 8s. 1d. per week for rent and rates and 2s. 4d. for clothes and insurance.
Then he goes on to speak of his boys, and says:
I will endeavour as far as possible to keep off public assistance for myself and my wife. It is utterly repugnant to both of us, and we believe that an immediate increase in the old age pension is due to the people that we belong to.
The other day I picked up a pamphlet which shows the treatment of other people, the people for whom the hon. Members who will move and second the Amendment speak. I see from this pamphlet that special arrangements are being made for Christmas and the New Year at the Savoy, for the people who say that we cannot afford to increase old age pensions. The price of the dinner on Boxing night will be 25s., excluding wines and cigars, and on New Year's eve the price of the dinner will be three guineas, excluding wines and cigars. Treatment of this kind is for people who belong to the class that neither toils nor spins. Yet for the miners and the industrial classes to which we belong, there is 10s. a week at the age of 65.
I have always believed that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor, but it now appears that there is also one law for the South of England and another law for the North of England. Municipalities throughout the country, particularly in South Wales, the North, the Midlands, and the North of Scotland, are becoming more and more indignant about the position into which they are getting. Thousands of our people who ought not to be expected to apply for public assistance have to do so, and the cost of giving this assistance is having an effect on the local rates. The people living in the areas I have mentioned not only have to bear the burden of unemployment, but also to pay additional

rates owing to the great number of our people who have to apply for public assistance. That is happening mostly in industrial centres, whereas in the South of England, where people retire at the ages of 55 or 60 on huge sums a week, there are relatively few old age pensioners, so that the rates are not affected by the position. The result is that not only Labour and Socialist, but even Conservative town councils throughout the North of England are becoming more and more concerned. The councils of Manchester, Salford, Stoke, Bootle, and many other municipalities are bringing increasing pressure to bear upon the Association of Municipal Corporations, demanding whether the time has not arrived when the Government should increase old age and widows' pensions in order to give the municipalities in the areas of which I have spoken some relief from that unjustifiable burden of rates.
I am not prepared to acquiesce in the state of affairs as it is at present. We who represent the industrial centres, and go into the homes of the poorest people in the country, find that old grandfathers and grandmothers are afraid to eat too much food lest they should be taking the bread out of the mouths of their grandchildren who are living in the same houses. Too many of our women at 65 and 70 years of age have to go out washing, cleaning, wearing themselves out, at an age when they should be sitting in the armchair enjoying leisure, after having worked the whole of their lives. Therefore, no matter what Government may be in power, we on these benches are not prepared to acquiesce in a state of affairs which means that our old people have to exist upon 10s. a week at 65 years of age.
Here is our economic case for an increase in pensions. In 1911, pensions were 5s. a week. During the War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) instructed the Members of his Cabinet to receive a deputation led by Bob Smillie, and the result was that old age pensions were increased to 7s. 6d. a week. In 1919, they were further increased to 10s. a week. In 1919, the national income was £3,000,000,000. In 1938, the national income is £5,000,000,000. Therefore, quite apart from any sentimental case, there is an economic justification for demanding an increase in the pensions of


those people who have been responsible for increasing the national wealth to that extent. From where has that increase come? Has it come from the directors of big companies, and from the managerial and supervisory staffs? That increase has come from the mechanisation of the mining industry, from the introduction of electricity in coal-cutting, and things of that sort, with the result that when men reach the age of 55 or 60, owing to the increased output and the exploitation of human energy to a greater extent than has ever been known, they cannot hold their own with younger men, and are thrown out of employment. Then, when they reach the age of 65, owing to the change which was brought about in 1928 by the present Prime Minister, all that they are entitled to receive is an old age pension of 10s. a week.
I give hon. Members this further evidence from the journal "Economist." In its index of profits, the "Economist," taking 100 in 1930 as a basis, shows that by 1937 profits had gone up to 106.7, and that, in addition, bonus shares were being paid, which was a sure sign of the high profitability of industry. Therefore, this is a very opportune time to suggest that the country can easily stand an immediate increase in old age pensions. When introducing the Budget this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Exchequer receipts were five times greater than they were a quarter of a century ago, and at the time I made a note—"And old age pensions are still 10s. a week." We find that the expenditure on armaments in 1933 was £77,000,000, whereas in 1936 it was £178,000,000. I hope hon. Members will be good enough to make a note of the next piece of evidence. I would add that if there were time I could produce evidence to show that social insurance in this country is not a present form from the rich people, but is paid for out of the pockets of the workers. The workers' State insurance contributions in 1913 were £8,000,000, whereas in 1936 they amounted to £46,000,000. In 1913, expenditure on old age pensions was £12,400,000, whereas in 1936, despite the enormous increase in the national income, the expenditure on old age pensions at 70 years of age was only £44,600,000. During the Coronation celebrations, it

was my privilege to meet a real gentleman; it was my privilege to meet a real statesman. At that time, he said in a speech:
I see no reason why the Government should apologise for helping the poor, and I am not going to apologise for it.
That statement was made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I hope that at a time which is not far distant, we shall be able to rally the support of the people in order that this great country, which should be proud of New Zealand, can do likewise, and develop the social services in the way that New Zealand is now doing. The "Financial Times" said, on 9th September, 1938, that the aggregate incomes of people in New Zealand had increased by 45 per cent. in two years. Some of us are constantly affirming that in this country it would be a sound economic proposition, even within the framework of the present social system, to increase the purchasing power of the people, thereby bringing about a fairer distribution of wealth and enabling the people of the country to unite in meeting the serious international situation which we shall face in the future. The Prime Minister of New Zealand said:
For 2,000 years people have said, 'Care for the sick, care for the aged, and care for the widows.' New Zealand is doing that now, and the mother country should be proud of it.
I would like to say a few words about the Amendment. I thought that most hon. Members were using their influence to bring about the maximum amount of co-operation and unity. Hon. Members cannot expect to get that on old age pensions of 10s. a week at 65. If the hon. Members who are to move and second the Amendment are concerned about the national finances, why do they not suggest a fairer distribution of wealth, why do they not support this party in the demand which it has made time after time that there should be an easing of the economic position of the people? In answer to a question yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade said that he wanted British people to eat British meat. We agree with him. We also want that. We want to assist the British farmers to improve their economic position and at the same time to improve the economic position of agricultural labourers. But how can people eat British meat when they have an income of only 10s. a week? I want to put a question to every hon.


Member. I would like to put that question to every hon. Member individually, and particularly to the hon. Members who are to move and second the Amendment. Does any hon. Member think that 10s. a week is enough for an old age pensioner or widow? I would like to have an answer "Yes" or "No," to that question in this Debate. I do not want any evasions of the sort with which questions of this nature are constantly evaded. That is the issue to-night, and that will be the issue that every hon. Member opposite, and every hon. Member on this side, will have to face throughout the country from now onwards—Do they stand for 10s. a week for old age pensioners and widows?
From 1927 until he died, it was my privilege to meet John Wheatley night after night. I remember that the one thing that he used to emphasise more than anything else was that our party should constantly stress the need for a fairer distribution of wealth. He said that so often that at times I thought he was overdoing it, but now that I have thought over what he said, now that I have had more experience and been able to do more reading, I have become more convinced than ever I was that what our party must constantly hammer at and what we must constantly raise in this House is the need for bringing about a fairer distribution of wealth. This is one elementary step which we suggest should be taken to that end. There comes to my mind one thing which hon. and right hon. Members opposite often do. I have friends who drive the "Silver Jubilee," the "Mancunian" and the "Royal Scot." I am pleased to call them friends. On several occasions, Lord Baldwin went to the driver and the fireman and thanked them for a safe journey. The men who drive those trains daily between Scotland and London are great men. Great men are needed to do that work. The men who build the locomotives used on the "Silver Jubilee," the "Mancunian" and the "Royal Scot" are also great men. Yet all that this great country offers them at the age of 65 is a pension of 10s. a week.
We know that the miners of this country are great men. For generations they have been going into the bowels of the earth to extract coal and other minerals. They have been largely responsible for making this country great. They risk their lives daily. While

they are at work their wives are in constant anxiety, and if they are late in returning home their families fear what may have happened to them. Yet there is only 10s. a week pension for those men when they reach the age of 65. I gladly second this Motion and, despite the Amendment which has been put down on the Paper, I hope that hon. Members opposite who may feel themselves unable to go all the way with us in other respects will, at least, go with us as far as this Motion is concerned, so that we can place on record the unanimous opinion of this House that the time has arrived when there should be an increase in the pensions of the aged people and widows of this country.

4.47 p.m.

Captain Conant: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, recognising the great value of the existing pension schemes to the social welfare of the nation, would welcome their further extension as and when practicable on a sound financial basis; but is of opinion that at a time when the prime necessity of strengthening the country's defences is placing a severe strain on the national finances, such extension would, besides placing a heavy direct burden both on industry and those employed in industry, involve such additional demands on the national Exchequer as would imperil that financial stability upon which depends the well-being of industry and employment and the maintenance of all the existing social services.
I am sure the House will join with me in paying a tribute to the eloquence and sincerity of the hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Motion. I think the desire which they have so eloquently expressed that the lot of our old people should be improved, will find an echo in every quarter of the House. But I have put down this Amendment because I take the view that we are trustees for the whole community, and responsible for the well-being not only of those who are drawing old age pensions at the present day but of those who hope to qualify for old age pensions in the years to come, and also for all those millions of people who are now engaged in trade and industry, and who, by their labour, are providing the funds from which old age pensions are paid. I take the view that to embark at this moment upon a scheme which is bound to impose great additional burdens on our trade would not be in the interests of the community


as a whole. The value of a pensions scheme, to my mind, is not only in the contribution which such a scheme makes to the relief of present distress. It is also in its contribution towards relief from anxiety for the future, and that is perhaps one of the most valuable attributes of any soundly constructed pensions scheme. The certainty with which one can look forward to receiving an old age pension in future years is, I believe, of real value to the nation, and in considering the proposals which have been so well advanced by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, we have surely to consider, not only their effect upon old age pensioners who, as has been pointed out, are in many cases suffering grave hardships, but also the effect upon those who are looking forward to receiving pensions in the future, and whose confidence in the ability of our country to provide those pensions would be shattered if we were to increase the national burden at the present time.
The cost of old age pensions at present is some £95,000,000. The Exchequer share comes to £65,000,000. We know from vital statistics that the average age of our population is steadily rising, and that as the years go by a higher proportion of our population is reaching the age of 65. Consequently, in the future more will be paid out in benefits and less received in contributions, with the result that the cost of the pensions scheme in this country will automatically rise and the Exchequer share of that cost will also rise. It is estimated that the total cost, which is £95,000,000 at present, will rise to £147,000,000 in 40 years. The Exchequer share will rise very steeply from £65,000,000 to £113,000,000. That rise is automatic, without any increase in benefit rates or any other alterations in the present scheme. We are engaged now upon a great national effort to expand our defences, and we are pursuing that course with the approval, in principle, of all parties—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]—well, of almost all parties. The Estimates for this year have reached the colossal figure of £352,000,000, and, obviously, those Estimates are likely to be exceeded. To superimpose upon that figure the additional cost of increased old age pensions at this time, would, I think, have the same effect as the unbalanced Budget in 1931 had on the Government of that day. It seems to me that if we were

to expand expenditure upon one branch of our social services, we should lose that balance of relationship between the social services which, I believe, it is important to maintain. Therefore, we ought not, to embark upon a great and costly extension in one direction at the risk of finding ourselves unable in the future even to preserve our existing social services in their present form.
The hon. Member who seconded the Motion referred to the Social Security Act recently passed by the Government of New Zealand. I am glad he did so, because I am certain that if he had examined that Act and knew the exact conditions on which the benefits under it are being paid, he would not have suggested, as he did, that we ought to follow the example of the New Zealand Government. The plan of that Act would not in the least fit in with our pensions scheme. Although, as the hon. Member said, pension benefits under that Measure have been increased to figures considerably higher than those which are paid in this country, yet they are paid subject to a means test and that, in spite of the fact that the pensions scheme in the Social Security Act is on a contributory basis. I cannot believe that the hon. Member really meant what he said when he suggested that we ought to follow that example. Incidentally, there is another test under that Act. Benefits are paid only to applicants of good moral character and sober habits. In this country we have divided our pensions into two categories. We pay contributory pensions without any test of means and as a right. Non-contributory pensions, rightly, I believe, are subject to a means test, which, I notice, hon. Members opposite propose to continue in their own plan.
If we were to follow the example of New Zealand and impose a means test in the case of contributory pensions we should save a great deal of money, and we might be able to raise our pension benefits, but I do not think it would be practicable to impinge that new principle upon our existing pension services. It may interest the hon. Member to know that the Social Security Act is expected to cost New Zealand some £15,000,000. It includes not only age benefits but unemployment benefits and provision for invalids, for orphans, for miners, for health services, medical services and war pensions. The scales in many cases are higher than those


payable in this country. The cost of £15,000,000, of which £8,500,000 is from contributions, is somewhat less than one-sixth of what we are spending on the pensions service alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about population?."] I was just about to say that it only shows the difference between a country with 40,000,000 inhabitants and a country with 1,500,000 inhabitants. One cannot really draw comparisons to suggest that we ought to impose in this country exactly the same legislation as that which may be found suitable in other countries. The hon. Members opposite referred only to one aspect of this problem, namely, the effect of the present scheme upon the old age pensioner and the hardships which, as they have pointed out—no doubt with accuracy—people are suffering to-day on account of the low rates of benefit which it is at present possible to pay. They have told us extraordinarily little about how we should meet the cost of the extension which they propose.

Mr. MacLaren: A tax on land values.

Mr. Gallacher: Take it from the robbers.

Captain Conant: Hon. Members have their own plans, but although some hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, for instance—do not apparently accept their party's plan, yet I imagine it is still the policy of the party opposite to increase benefits by the method suggested in the pamphlet "Labour's Pension Plan." I take it that that pamphlet still represents, in the opinion of the party opposite, the best method by which their policy should be carried out in present circumstances. Perhaps the House, therefore, will allow me to make a few criticisms of what they propose to do. Since so little has been heard about the plan to-day, may I ask, first, whether it has met the same fate as its predecessor, the plan which promised old age pensions at the age of 60, and which was scrapped for the simple reason that the cost in those days, when the national burden was far lighter than it is to-day, was found to be prohibitive, and whether the plan has undergone any modification owing to the increasing enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite for spending money on armaments? Has that in any way modified their view as to what it is possible to spend in the direction of pensions?
Their plan proposes many most excellent reforms, at a cost of £80,000,000,

which is the estimate of the promoters, but in my submission that money is to be raised by methods which are extraordinarily unjust to the contributors to the scheme. I think it is most unfair that those who are compelled by law to contribute to the scheme should contribute on the basis which is laid down in this plan. As the House knows, under our present scheme no one is called upon to pay in contributions more than his own benefits are worth. A young entrant to insurance, at the age of 16, is called upon to pay a contribution which represents the actuarial worth of his benefit, and because, in a compulsory and universal scheme, you are bound to have a flat rate of contributions, it follows that everyone who enters insurance above the age of 16 is in fact paying less than the real value of his own benefits. The balance, therefore, under our present scheme, is made up by the State, and that represents the State's contribution to insurance. Under the plan of the party opposite it is proposed that the State should contribute
what it can afford to pay, according to the budgetary conditions prevailing at the time.
and the balance to make up the amount required is to come from contributions. We are told in the scheme that it is not unreasonable or impracticable to ask an additional weekly contribution up to 1s. a week from insured male persons and 9d. a week from insured female persons. That means that the younger people in insurance are being called upon to pay, not only for the benefits that they will receive, but for the benefits that are to be paid immediately to a number of other people. In fact, it is the proposal of the party opposite that they should raise their money by a direct tax upon the young people in industry, in order that pensions may be increased immediately, and that, in my submission, is extraordinarily unfair. I do not think the young man in industry should be singled out for a special tax in addition to what he is to receive back when he qualifies for benefit, in order that old age pensions may be increased immediately for other people. Our present system guards against that unfair practice.
Hon. Members have referred to a great many alleged anomalies in the present system, and I join with them in hoping that any anomalies or apparent injustices


may be removed as soon as possible, but in my submission it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how, in any contributory scheme where you have a dividing line, you can dispense altogether with apparent injustices. Of course, you will have the man on one side of the line and the man on the other, and it is always the person who just fails to qualify who is the most deserving case. That is inevitable, and no one, in my judgment, is entitled to exploit that type of grievance which arises from the dividing line unless he is prepared to abandon the contributory principle altogether. Hon. Members' efforts in their own scheme to remedy anomalies have not been particularly successful, and where they have attempted to do so they have created greater anomalies which will affect a greater number of people. I would mention two instances. First of all, there is the wife of an insured old age pensioner who receives a pension at the age of 55. But why should not the widow of the same age receive the same pension, and what about the spinster? Her case is just as hard. We are told in the plan of hon. Members opposite that spinsters are not to have pensions, on account of the cost. That is the reason why it is definitely turned down. On page 18, while we find that the wife, on the one hand, is to get a pension, the widow and spinster are not.
Then we have the similar case of the wife of an insured old age pensioner who receives a pension of 15s. at 55, but if her husband dies, her pension drops to 10s. When she reaches the age of 65, it goes up to 20s., and that is, I submit, a very remarkable situation and only goes to show that when you do remove, successfully, one anomaly, you almost invariably create other and worse anomalies in its place. It is extraordinarily easy for us to say that we are in favour of increasing old age pensions, but it is quite a different thing to sit down and, with a full sense of responsibility, count not only the cost to the national finances, but the effect of such a course upon other sections of the community. There is the effect, for instance, upon our trade, because surely the increased contributions of employers and employed and the increased taxation which would inevitably result from an extension of pension benefits would be a serious handicap to our trade at the present time. I believe that

it is not in the general interest of the community that at this time, while our rearmament programme is still upon us, we should take this course, and on that account I ask the House to accept the Amendment.

5.8 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who moved the Motion, said that if we to-day in this House could pass his Motion, it would be a great gesture to the world at large, and might indeed be a gesture of such note that it would do much to stabilise the international situation by proving to the totalitarian States the inherent strength of democracy. Could we pass anything which would do that, we should indeed be achieving much, but if by merely showing how admirable our pension schemes were, we could achieve that, it would have been done already, for to-day, I think I am right in saying, in this country some 19,000,000 persons in insurable employment are covered in one way or another by pension schemes, and that excludes the non-contributory pensions of old people at 70. It happens to be a more comprehensive scheme than is put forward by any other country in the world, and I think it does show to the totalitarian States the strength of democracy and is a very good proof of the healthy condition achievable by democracy. If pension schemes are likely to influence them in any way, they would already be influenced.
I should like to stress what the Mover of the Amendment, the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Captain Conant), has said, that the important feature of an old age pension scheme, the feature that is more valuable to those who receive it than any other, is that it should be secure, and we have no right to stand up in this House, no matter how great our sympathy for cases which are admittedly hard, no matter how small the sum which the people now get may be, and say, "We will increase it," unless we are quite certain that in doing that we are doing nothing which will jeopardise the safety and security that those people now enjoy in regard to their pensions. I am sure that hon. Members opposite agree with me that security of the pension is more important that anything else.


Where they and I differ is as to our ability to afford to increase that sum at this moment.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who seconded the Motion, asked me whether or not I thought 10s. a week was a sufficiently large sum for anyone to live on. Of course it is not, particularly for old people. No one in this country would get up and say that 10s. a week was a large enough sum to live on, but I do not think it has been the policy of the party opposite—it has certainly never been the policy of any Government of this country—to say that the old age pension should be an adequate sum to sustain life in desirable circumstances. It has never been put forward as an adequate sum for the total needs of a family or a person; it has always been put forward as a minimum benefit which they can be sure of receiving. If it be said by any hon. Member opposite that the old age pension has ever been put forward by any Government or party as being an adequate sum for a family to live on, how is it that it has never followed the cost of living index? In 1919, when it was raised from 5s. to 10s., because of the high costs of that day, the cost of living index was at 255, but to-day it is at 156, and on that basis, if you had ever made your old age pension follow your costs of living index, you would not now be getting very much more than 7s. On that basis the old age pension of 10s., if you compare it with 1919, must be worth to-day about 14s.
I, therefore, say that we never have considered the cost of living, and none of us pretends that it is an adequate sum of money, but when you take notice of that tremendously important feature, security, it is better to have that than to embark on a scheme to increase it without due thought as to whether you would be able to make it secure in the future. The hon. Member for Stoke said that he was not putting forward to-day the Labour pension scheme, but, as the Mover of the Amendment said, you cannot get up in this House and advocate a scheme unless you define what it is. The scheme of the party opposite has been defined, and I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that it shows very grave anomalies. One of the features of the Motion before the House is that an increase in the pension scheme would encourage people to leave employment.
Decreasing unemployment is one of the reasons hon. Members opposite give for increasing old age pensions. They admit that some 360,000 people over 65 are at present in insurable employment, and they claim that from that number about 250,000 would retire if the pensions were increased. I do not know on what they base that figure, but I think it is an exceedingly problematical one. I do not agree that if we increase the pension to £1 for a single man and 35s. for a married couple from the present 10s., we have any right to believe that 250,000 people will retire from employment. I do not think it is true. Even if they would, is that a practical scheme from the point of view of employment? Hon. Members opposite say that their scheme would cost on an average £85,000,000 a year additional to our present expenditure for the next 10 years. They claim that 250,000 people will be put into employment. Do they really believe that for an additional 250,000 people going into employment—with which I do not agree—it is worth spending £85,000,000 a year of the taxpayers' and work people's money? That is a very fallacious argument, and I should like to know on what they base the figure of 250,000 people whom they say would leave employment.
I want to look at the cost of this proposal, because I have said that we must be certain of security, and we cannot guarantee it if we increase the cost beyond what we are able to afford. At the present time our social services are costing some £222,000,000 a year. Of that we are spending £95,000,000 on pension schemes. Have we any right to come to the House and say that we must increase the pensions schemes without saying one word as to whether or not, at the same time, it will be desirable to increase the other social services? We cannot take one-quarter of the cost of the whole and say that we must increase it. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not said that."] Hon. Members have said that they are in favour of increasing old age pensions. I say that it is desirable they should be increased, but we must be certain whether we can afford it and what we can afford, and what comparable increases we must make in the other social services. We know that our budget of £922,000,000 will have to be increased, because we have to find extra money for Defence Services. Until we know exactly what


the cost of the Defence Services is likely to be, we cannot say how much we can afford to spend on increasing the social services. When we know by how much we can increase them, then will be the time to apportion the sum between the whole of the services, and not give it only to old age pensioners.
I think that hon. Members are ignoring one important factor, although it is put forward in the Labour pensions scheme. We sometimes forget that the schemes which we pass here to-day have to be paid for by future generations. I notice that the Labour party in their plan say that it is useless to look further than 10 years ahead as none of us know what the nation, or the worker, or the employer will be able to afford in 10 years time. When we are considering pension schemes we have to look 40 years ahead, because we are asking young people to-day to start contributing for these pensions, the benefits of which they will not get for 40 years, and we have no right to ask people for increased contributions unless we are certain they can get the benefit when the 40 years have elapsed. Do we realise that every 10 years our population is decreasing by, roughly, 2,000,000 people, but at the same time, every 10 years, the number of people over 65 years of age is increasing by about 2,000,000? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Do hon. Members know what is put forward in the Labour party's pension pamphlet? [An HON. MEMBER: "You have not read it."] I have read it very carefully and I will read what it says. [HON. MEMBERS: "All of it?"] I should not like to read all of it aloud, and I often wonder whether hon. Members themselves can have done so.
In the year 1936 the total population of this country was 45,144,000 and the number of persons over 65 was 3,640,000. In 1941 it is calculated that the population will have dropped from 45,000,000 to 44,000,000 and that the people over 65 years of age will have increased from 3,640,000 to 4,127,000.
That is a very serious consideration—roughly 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 extra people to be kept by a population of 1,500,000 fewer people. It would put a very heavy burden upon the people in industry, and before we do anything which will increase the taxation of these people we have to think very carefully whether or not they can afford it.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the hon. Lady considered the increased potential productive capacity owing to machinery, science and invention with those smaller numbers?

Mrs. Tate: I have certainly considered it, but I have also considered the great wealth of this country in the past and of the frequent statements that are made of the dangers of competition to our trade, and of the possibility of keeping up the present lead of this country with that growing competition. Hon. Members themselves in the recent crisis have been forced to say that we have now to look to increased competition from Germany and the great wealth of those countries with which we have to compete, which have so much middle European trade and a lower standard of life. We have all those factors to take into consideration. I wish that I could think that the potential wealth of this country would increase at the same rate at which it increased in past years, but we have seriously to consider whether we can, in comparison with other nations, keep up our standard of wealth. We must be certain of that before we place this enormous burden on a decreasing population of young people.
I hope that we shall have a larger number of superannuation schemes. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion was a little unfair about some schemes he mentioned when he said that all we gave these highly skilled people in old age was 10s. a week. Many of them, I am thankful to say, belong to additional superannuation schemes. They are highly desirable. I should like to see their growth in industry, for they are one of the safest and healthiest ways of providing for old age pensions. The increased cost of £85,000,000, which the labour party admit will be the cost of their scheme, does not account for the anomalies that exist. Before I agree to an increase of pensions all round I should like to see some of the anomalies wiped out. If we granted a pension of 10s. to wives of old age pensioners when their husbands drew a pension, the cost of the scheme would be increased by £6,500,000, which would rise automatically to £8,000,000 in 10 years.
I do not think we have taken enough note of the fact that the £96,000,000 which pensions already cost will automatically increase in 40 years' time, even if we do not add an additional farthing to the


present pensions, to £147,000,000. When hon. Members say that so little is done, do they forget that the cost of pensions is already 20,000,000 greater to-day than it was when the Labour party were in power in 1930? Is it nothing to them that there is that enormous increase? I ask hon. Members to be quite sure that we can afford to do what we all want to do. There is not a human being in the country who does not want to make old age easier and more secure. There is not one of us who does not sympathise with the hard cases of which we all know, but if we promise what we cannot fulfil, we are bringing infinitely greater hardships than exist to-day. I say that the schemes which the party opposite have put forward are unsound, and must inevitably bring that hardship upon the people.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I heartily support the Motion. Sometimes it is said that if the circumstances of the country were such as to force all the progressive elements in each of the three parties into one government, they would find it possible to agree on foreign policy, but they would not agree on home policy. I do not take that view. I certainly think that there would be no difficulty in finding agreement, for example, on the subject of pensions and the necessity of increasing them in the interests of the people as a whole. It is my practice in August to go into my constituency with a loud speaker and invite the residents in various streets to come and have a talk with me on any subject where they desire to enlighten me on their views, or to ask me any questions. I am bound to say that my experience is that they are mainly interested in two questions. One subject is housing, and with regard to that while I express my sympathy with them I refer them to the local authorities, because housing is not primarily a matter for Parliament.
The other subject is pensions. There is a widespread feeling that pensions are not large enough, and do not cover a sufficient number of people to be fair and just. We have heard something about the Labour programme, and if the Mover and Seconder of the Motion failed in any way to do justice to that programme their omission was made up for by the very full remark on the subject by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, who were good enough to give a very fine advertisement

to the Labour party's scheme. I was very much distressed to see the alarm of the two hon. Members regarding that programme. Apparently they thought it would be unfair and that it would not work. I did not gather whether they thought it would give too little and wanted a more generous pension scheme. On the whole, I was not too much impressed by their criticism, because I came to the conclusion that their own programme is to make no extensions whatsoever of pensions. In the main the Government and the party opposite—not all of them, for there are saner elements among them—do not offer any prospect to the electors of an extension of pensions, and I agree that the Social Services not only cannot be maintained but will have to be cut down under the policy which the Government are pursuing at the moment.
The programme of the Labour party seems to be in its basis a fair and adequate one. One proposal is for a pension of £1 a week for a single person, with 35s. for a married couple, as full rates of pension for persons of 65 and over qualified under the Old Age and Blind Pensions Acts and the Contributory Pensions Acts—subject to certain provisions. One proposal to which I would particularly refer, because I have found a great demand for it among my constituents, is that the pension should be given to the wife as soon as the husband qualifies for pension, provided the wife is over 55. The hon. Lady made some reference to it. I understand there are about 250,000 husbands over 65 receiving a pension who have wives younger than themselves and who are not getting the pension. One of the best reforms we could make would be to say that the wife shall get the pension as soon as she is 55. That would do away with the difficulty which arises from the pension of 10s. being used at times to subsidise wages. The man is kept on by his firm but 10s. is taken from his wages. If husband and wife both got the pension there would be a much better chance of the man retiring from industry altogether and thereby making way for someone else who would be paid the full wage.
I hope that as an outcome of the work of the committee which is sitting at present something will be done in the way of pensions for spinsters. I certainly have every sympathy for them and think that their claim can be fully justified. Having


stated generally my strong support for increased and extended old age pensions, I come to the question, Can we afford them? I entirely agree that the present Government, with their policy, are not in a position to pay for them. There is no hope of the people getting increased pensions from them. It is entirely a matter of foreign policy. I am not going into a discussion on that subject, but it all depends upon that. If we pursue a policy which involves a perfectly futile, endless and disastrous race in armaments, one country competing against the other, causing extra taxation to be piled on every year and yet bringing no peace to anybody but leading only to final disaster, we certainly cannot afford extended pensions and we shall not be able to keep going the Social Services which we now have. The Government are anxious that no such idea should get abroad, but what I have said is perfectly true and they will not be able to hide it very much longer. On the other hand I say most definitely that if those of us who take a different view of foreign policy were given the opportunity which I think will come when hon. Members opposite, in due course, go the way of Bridgwater, what I have indicated would be possible under that other policy.

Mr. Lipson: The policy of what?

Mr. Mander: I should not be in order in going into foreign policy, but the general views of the two sides of the House are perfectly well known, and if the hon. Member has any doubt he can read them up in the reports of the Debates recently. It is a policy which, as a result of joint and collective action by the peace-loving nations of the world, would enable international disarmament to take place under international supervision, which would bring with it a decrease in armaments and a decrease, therefore, of taxation, a cessation of the armaments race, and the freeing of large annual sums of money which could be used for the purposes we are discussing to-night. That is the real issue. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly right and logical in saying that what is proposed to-night cannot be done under their policy and under their Government, but it can be done, and that is why we desire to see them depart quietly from office at the earliest convenient moment.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: As the hon. Member says that what the Opposition are asking for to-night is impossible under the present Government's policy shall we find him in the Lobby with us against the Motion—as he says that it is impossible? Is the hon. Member going to look both ways?

Mr. Mander: Perhaps the hon. Member has not realised that we on this side are pursuing a dual and concurrent policy. One part of it is to press forward with these pension schemes and the other is simultaneously to get rid of the present Government. I think, therefore, that he can feel reassured as to any difficulty that might confront me as to how I should vote in the Lobby to-night. I support the Motion warmly for two reasons; because I think that what is asked can be done and that it would be just and fair to the people of this country, and because I am one of those who desire to see the wealth of this country redistributed. I think there is far too much wealth in the hands of a limited class, and one of the best ways of producing greater equality is to see that by way of taxation sums are taken from the pockets of the wealthy and placed in the pockets of the poor. Pensions are a proper and reasonable way of doing it, and for that reason I heartily support the Motion.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has carried on his party's traditional duality policy, and I do not think I need say more about that except, perhaps by way of example, to remind him of the resignation from his party yesterday of a distinguished member of it, Mr. D. M. Mason, who used to sit for Edinburgh. The hon. Member who moved this Motion said he did not put it forward in a party spirit, but I think he will forgive me if I say that he and the seconder between them pretty fully explained their party's policy, and I compliment them on the sincerity with which they did it. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion quoted Mr. Wheatley, with whom he was associated for some years and of whom he saw a good deal. Let me also quote someone from the past as representative of Tory ideas.
The Tory party has three great objects. The first is to maintain the institutions of


the country, the second is to uphold the Empire, the third is the elevation of the condition of the people.
That was said by Benjamin Disraeli.

Mr. Charles Brown: You are giving the Empire away.

Mr. Duncan: I do not think anybody who knows anything about the Empire would regard that interruption as being really serious. It is the third object which we are discussing to-day, the elevation of the condition of the people. However sincere hon. Members opposite may be in pursuit of this particular aspect of the elevation of the people, I hope they will not consider us any less sincere if we take a different view, at this moment. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion asked us individually whether we thought that a widow or an old age pensioner could live on 10s. a week. My answer is No, quite frankly, but I follow that up by saying that it was not the idea of the pensions scheme that they should live on 10s. a week, but that the 10s. should be a contribution towards the maintenance of old age pensioners and their wives at the end of their working lives or if, through becoming widows, they have lost their means of livelihood with the death of their husbands. The pension was never intended to be the full sum on which they should be able to live.
I think we should recognise that of recent years there has been an enormous extension of pension schemes. The Contributory Pensions Act is only 12 years old, and has been of enormous benefit, and it was passed by a Conservative Government. I think the main difference between the position as it was before 1926 and now is that although 10s. may not be adequate to keep a widow or an old age pensioner none the less the fact that there is this contribution to the family income makes an enormous difference to the lot of those people who are getting pensions to-day. As a matter of finance, it is interesting to note that the cost of living was in the neighbourhood of 175 points over 1914 when the contributory pensions scheme came in and that it is now in the neighbourhood of 160. The actual value of 10s. is greater now than when the pension was introduced. I do not make a great point of that, but say it in passing, because I think the point should be remembered. Then there is the voluntary pension which has already been passed

by this House and which will, in its way, be of enormous benefit to those who are not in insurance, having been left out by previous Acts. They are now introduced for the first time.
I must support the Amendment. The Motion states:
This House is of opinion that the necessary reforms should be introduced without delay.
For reasons which have already been stated the country is not in a position to go in for vastly increased expenditure of that nature. Many questions were asked during last summer about the cost of various extensions of the pensions scheme. I do not remember them all, but they varied, if I remember aright, between £60,000,000 and £150,000,000 a year. They were extensions upon a very considerable scale, at any rate. The estimates for the Services this year are about £352,000,000 and an enormous increase is bound to take place in the Estimates next year, the Air Ministry alone accounting for £200,000,000, as the Secretary of State for Air said last week. It is obvious that further vast expenditure for increasing pensions is at the present time quite impracticable. For that reason I cannot vote for the Motion.
I come to the consideration of the Amendment. I agree with its first sentence:
This House, recognising the great value of the existing pensions schemes"—
I have said something about that—
… would welcome their further extension as and when practicable on a sound financial basis.
That expresses what is in my mind. I would like to see the pensions schemes extended as and when practicable on a sound financial basis. If the policy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is successful, as I hope it will be, and there is some form of disarmament in the near future, we may be able to release for social purposes sums which are now being devoted to armaments. I believe that pensions would be as good social purposes as any other for the elevation of the condition of the people.
I am not altogether happy about the rest of the Amendment. The next seven or eight lines seem to ask the Government to do nothing whatever, to make no extension and to remove no anomalies. I must confess that if it were possible to


remove some of the anomalies I should be delighted to support the Government in doing so, in spite of the financial stringency. Hon. Members have already mentioned one anomaly, that of the man who receives a pension at 65 years of age and who may be put out of work. He does not have to be put out of work, but sometimes that is what happens. [HON. MEMBERS indicated dissent.] No, it does not happen in all cases. His wife, not being 65, he gets only 10s. a week to live on until his wife is 65. If the wife, provided she does not work, could also get 10s. a week when the husband became 65, there would be £1 coming into their house. I am sure that the additional money would be of enormous value. I cannot imagine that the cost of that extension would be too great or that there is a very large number of cases.
Another anomaly, the correction of which should cost still less money, contains one of the hardest cases. It is always said that you cannot get good law without hard cases, but this hard case should be met in some way. It is that of the widow of a man who, to all appearances, so far as his wife knew, was insured when he was alive. The woman has not worked for years except in looking after her home, children and husband. Then the husband dies and she makes application in the ordinary way for pension. She is told that because her husband had not the requisite number of stamps on his card she is not entitled to a pension. When inquiries are made it is found that the husband ought to have had the stamps on his card but that the employer was at fault. Under the law, as I understand it, the employer can be sued for the number of stamps that are missing, but even though the stamps are subsequently paid up the widow is not entitled to a pension because the stamps must be put on at the due date. There cannot be many cases of this kind. In the last few years I have had three in my constituency. One is still pending and we may be able to wangle round the law in some way.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Member tell us how to do it?

Mr. Duncan: I have not yet discovered. The case does not come within the law of the ordinary hard case. However much you may blame the man for not

seeing that his card was stamped, he is now dead and the widow has to suffer through no fault of her own. You cannot expect a woman to watch every stamp that is put on her husband's card. I urge the Financial Secretary seriously to consider whether financial conditions admit of his looking into that type of case.
I have merely mentioned those two anomalies to see whether they can be met. For the rest, I shall have to vote for the Amendment. I cannot vote for the Motion, but I would like to see, as and when financial circumstances permit, the extension of the pensions scheme on the lines of that great Tory leader of the past Benjamin Disraeli.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: Some weeks ago I introduced a Bill with the specific object of increasing pensions from 10s. to £1 per week and of removing anomalies created by deficiency of contributions. I hope that the hon. Member who has just spoken will support my Bill.

Mr. Duncan: It was good in parts.

Mr. Stephen: I am sorry if the hon. Member thinks it is a bad Bill. Either he does not agree with increasing the pensions from 10s. a week or he disagrees with the removal of anomalies arising from deficiencies of contributions. It cannot be anything else. If he does not disagree on either of those points he must support the Bill altogether. On that occasion I had the unanimous approval of the House for the introduction of the Bill, which took place at the close of the Session because I wanted the Government to understand that Members on all sides of the House were in favour of this measure of justice to the old age pensioners and the widows who are now existing on 10s. a week. Unfortunately, the Government did not take advantage of the obvious wish of Members of this House. There is nothing in the King's Speech that offers hope to the people in such poor circumstances.
I want to try to take the Debate away from some of the side-issues which have been introduced by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment and by the hon. Member who preceded me. The question that the House has to face is not whether it is possible within the national revenue to provide increases for


these pensioners, but whether these people can be expected to go on living, or managing to exist, on 10s. a week. I have the support of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that 10s. is inadequate for this purpose. In answer to a supplementary question he stated that it was obvious that nobody supposed that these people could live on 10s. a week and that the idea was that the old age pension should be supplemented from other sources. I do not think I am doing him an injustice, although I am not quoting his exact words. What we have to consider is not the national income and expenditure, but the possibility of the 10s. a week to those people being supplemented from other sources.
There are two possibilities in that regard. The first is supplementation by relatives or friends. My experience is that most of the old age pensioners have no relatives who are able to assist them in that way, and I should think that, taking the old age pensioners of the country as a whole, the overwhelming majority have no relatives who could help them in that way. I put the idea aside, and if hon. Members are honest they will do so too. The other possibility is that relating to the local authorities, who in some cases supplement the pensions by a certain amount, which may be half-a-crown. To add half-a-crown to the 10s. does not make it sufficient for the maintenance of the person concerned. The burden that is being put on distressed areas and places where unemployment has been heaviest, in connection with the supplementing of these pensions, is absolutely unfair.
Because the State—the national Treasury—is not fulfilling its responsibility in this respect, districts like Glasgow, which have had a big volume of unemployment, are put into an impossible position in regard to giving those people the maintenance that they ought to have. It means that, in districts like Glasgow and the distressed areas, the rates are forced up, and consequently those districts are placed in a completely false position as regards the development of industry in comparison with districts in the South and round about London. I accuse the Government of helping the movement of industry towards the South by the injustice that they are perpetrating upon those other districts in throwing upon the local authorities the burden of

the maintenance of these people when it ought to be a national responsibility. There are so many districts that cannot do it. Take Merthyr Tydfil, with a rate of 28s. or 3os. in the £. How are the old people in a district like that to receive the supplementation which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury declares to be necessary? It is practically impossible. Therefore, I believe that a great responsibility rests upon the Government to deal with this matter.
The kernel of the problem is, not how much the country can pay, but whether we are prepared to allow these thousands of our fellow-citizens to be starved to death because they are unable to get more than 10s. a week on which to live. That is the question on which hon. Members have to vote to-night. If they vote against the Motion, then specifically they are voting for allowing those people to remain on this 10s. a week level. It is no use their saying that the country cannot afford any more, in view of the great programme of rearmament which the Government have felt compelled to undertake. To my mind, Members of the House will not be facing the issue honestly if they do not realise that their responsibility to those old people in their districts compels them to see to it tonight that the Government are told that it is the opinion of those people's representatives in this House that their pensions should be increased—I would say to £1 per week. The Motion does not mention a specific figure, but I think hon. Members will agree that £1 a week is no extravagant amount on which to base the maintenance of the individuals concerned.
I wondered when I heard speakers on the other side of the House talk about the financial stringency at the present time, about the difficulties in view of the financial circumstances of the nation. If the country cannot afford to maintain its old people, it cannot afford to provide aeroplanes, dreadnoughts, and all the rest of the instruments of destruction. The first charge must be for the maintenance of human life in those days when we are still at peace. These are the parents of the men whom the country would expect to join the Colours and undertake the fighting if a war should break out. But you are going to leave the parents in this hopeless financial position; you are going to say to them: "We are very sorry for


you old folks; it is really too bad; we sympathise with you; but just look at the difficulties in which the country is. We have to spend umpteen millions to re-arm, and, after all, it is for your protection."
These people can protect themselves against any dangers that might come to them. What makes the danger for this country is the great wealthy resources of the rich, well-to-do sections of the community who own the land and the means of industry in this country. The old age pensioners in my division could really protect themselves. I have had put into my hand to-day, for example, a cutting from a local newspaper which reports that one of my constituents is living in such a house that she is bitten by a rat, and has to be removed to the Royal Infirmary. I might go to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I should not get a dreadnought to go up and protect her against a plague of rats; I should not get an aeroplane to go and bomb the rats that are attacking my constituents.
I am told that the country cannot provide the financial resources to do justice to the old age pensioners, but that is not the point. The point is that the country should be able to afford this money as a first charge on the national income. All this programme of rearmament will not interest the ordinary working people of the country. There will be no unanimity with regard to the provision of your rearmament if you go on treating the old people and the widows as they have been treated by these miserable 10s. a week rates. I put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that something has got to be done in this respect. The volume of opinion about the injustice which these people are suffering is growing. It is going to be one of the biggest questions in the future, and each Member of the House to-night, in the Division on this Motion, has got to realise his responsibility. It is no use his telling the old age pensioners in his division that the money cannot be found for them when all these hundreds of millions are being found for the instruments of death and destruction.
I prepared my Bill in order to get the matter definitely before the House of Commons. My Bill would put the charge on the employers, and I said, when I was introducing it under the Ten

Minutes Rule, that I knew that the employers of this country had such a hold upon the Government that, if the charge were put on the employers, the employers would see to it that the Government would undertake the financial responsibility and make it a State charge. The Mover of the Amendment drew attention to the New Zealand system, but I do not think he did justice in the least to that system. I would point out to him that under the New Zealand plan every individual has to pay his contribution; a person with £1,000 a year pays a corresponding contribution. In this country there is nothing like that. Hon. Members get up and tell us that there is not a country in the world that has such a fine system of social security as we have in this country—National Health insurance, an Unemployment scheme, a pension scheme. Yes, and a public assistance scheme.

Captain Conant: Does the hon. Member suggest contributory pensions?

Mr. Stephen: No; I am not suggesting that we should have a means test or contributory pensions, but I am suggesting that our system here should be, like that in New Zealand, that the rich person would have to pay his responsible portion in accordance with his wealth. We have not got that in this country. When the pension scheme was introduced in this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was the first to put the scheme before the House, pointed out with great glee that the beauty of it all was that in a term of years every person would be paying for his own pension, and there would not be any State contribution at all—that the old system would die out. I know it did not work out exactly in that way, but under the New Zealand system the rich have to pay according to their riches. Our system of social insurance here is wholly unco-ordinated; it is wasteful in the extreme because of the lack of co-ordination. In New Zealand they have so much co-ordination that they can work their scheme more economically as regards administration than we are working ours here. But all that is beside the point. What Members on the Benches above the Gangway and on this Bench are demanding is that these old age pensioners and widows should not have to continue, as they have in the past, practically speaking only existing, because of


their meagre pittance. I hope that a majority of hon. Members, both on the opposite side of the House and on this side, win let the Government understand that the old people and the widows have to get social justice.

6.13 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I have carefully considered the Motion, and compared its phrases with the Amendment. The Motion says:
the present scale of pensions is inadequate to provide a reasonable standard of life for the recipients.
So far as I know, no Member of the House will quarrel with that assertion. The Motion goes on to say that the present scale of pensions
does not encourage the retirement of elderly workers.
Again, nobody can quarrel with that statement. It proceeds:
There are anomalies in the present law which call for redress.
That has been admitted on all hands. No one who has served on an old age pensions committee would for one moment deny that there are anomalies. I am not in the least concerned about Labour policy, about their teddy-bear pamphlets, or anything of that kind. What I am concerned about is the question whether the old people can live on 10s. a week. Obviously they cannot, but I think it would be fair to say that they are not required to do so, and I am surprised that such a question should be addressed to Members of this House.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member says that they cannot live on 10s. a week, and are not expected to do so. Would he care to tell the House who pays the difference?

Sir R. Tasker: I was coming to that. I said that they do not have to live on 10s. a week, nor do they. If they are old age pensioners, there is nothing to prevent their getting assistance from the public assistance committee, and that is done in thousands of cases.

Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Member, then, contending that the old people should indeed be supported out of public funds, but that it is a matter of great principle with him and his friends that the public funds should be the local funds and not the funds of the State?

Sir R. Tasker: I think that, if my hon. Friend will be a little patient and will allow me to develop my argument, he will see what I am advocating. This is not a new problem. It is a problem which I, as chairman of an old age pensions committee for 15 years, have been endeavouring to get His Majesty's Government to look into. We are asked in the Amendment whether we can afford it. I say without hesitation that we can afford it. I wish to goodness that people in this House showed the same activity and the same enthusiasm to increase old age pensions by 5o per cent. as they did to increase their own remuneration by 50 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is very well to say "Hear, hear"; but there were only 17 Members who went into the Lobby to vote against that.
Of course, it is no use getting up unless one is prepared to suggest where there is a means of finding the money. Why should not the amount of stamps be increased? That is one way. I suggest that if we have money to lend to Czechoslovakia and other foreigners, we have money for our own aged poor and spinsters, and for the man who has been wrecked and ruined by reason of his avocation, and is bound to retire long before he is 65. We have to take an entirely different view of this question of pensions. I do not like the idea that the men and women who have been working for 30 and 40 years should find themselves dependent entirely on the present inadequate money which they receive under any insurance scheme. If it is necessary, I am prepared to cut down certain portions of the social services which in my view are almost useless. There are certain subjects taught to our children that are of no earthly use to them. If we wanted to find £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 a year for other people we could find it. If we can find £30,000,000 to send to the Czechs we can find £30,000,000 for the old people. Let me read this extract from a letter which I received this morning:
I have lived at the above address since September, 1891. My rent has been increased by 4s. 7d. since the end of the War, and by 7d. only since Saturday last. I can assure you that I do not know sometimes whether I shall be able to get the rent money together. I get sometimes a job or two, but nothing constant. I am a watchmaker over 75 years of age.


Here is a man paying 45. 7d. a week more for his rent, but his pension has not been increased. We have to bear in mind the difference between the value of 5s., 7s. 6d. or 10s. a week when the Old Age Pensions Acts came into operation and the value of those sums now. No one will deny that 10s. did not go much further when the Act was first introduced than it does to-day. On those grounds alone I would urge that there should be an increase. I promised to take 10 minutes; I will not exceed my time, but I want hon. Members in all parts of the House to believe me when I say that this desire to help the aged, the spinsters and the poor is not confined to any part of this House or any section of the community. I honestly believe that the great majority of the people of this country desire that something should be done to assist them.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Richards: It is quite natural that this Debate should centre on the difficult question of old age pensions. I should like to say a few words about that. The idea behind the Old Age Pensions Act originally was to remove the aged poor from the purview of the Poor Law, and I think that in a great many cases we have succeeded in doing that. Consequently, we can regard the Old Age Pensions Act as one of the most beneficient schemes ever passed through this House. One is sorry, however, to find that although we have succeeded to a certain extent in doing that, we have, as a result of constant unemployment in this country for a great number of years, a new body of people who are gradually becoming poorer, and, who are dealt with almost exclusively by the Poor Law. That means that we have not made the progress in this matter that we believed was possible some years ago.
The Old Age Pensions Act was first introduced into this House in 1908, after a very long period of agitation. For example, as far back as 1895 there was a report of a Committee of this House, which said that it appeared, from existing statistics, that nearly 20 per cent. of the total population above the age of 65 received relief in one day, and nearly 30 per cent. in the course of one year; and that if we deducted from those numbers the well-to-do, who were never

driven to seek relief in this way, the number must have been nearer 40 per cent. It was a fact of that kind, that somewhere between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the population in this very rich community at the end of the last century were receiving relief, which induced this House to pass the Old Age Pensions Act. That scheme, as we all know, was noncontributory, and it granted a pension of 5s. a week at the age of 70 to everyone whose income was below a certain limit; while in some cases, even then, it was possible for an old age pensioner to receive a pension of 10s. Since then some changes have taken place, and I would like to analyse the nature of those changes. There was, first, the natural agitation for the lowering of the age from 70 to 65. In 1925, as the result of this agitation, the age was reduced from 70 to 65. There are two points to remember. First, there is the reduction of the age to 65, and, secondly, the increasing of the pension to 10s.
If I put it baldly in that way, it looks as though some very considerable change had taken place in the scheme; but let me remind hon. Members that after 1925 the pensioner was really paying for his pension—not for the whole of it, it is true, but paying for it to a certain extent—and the pension scheme has by that fact gradually been converted into a contributory insurance scheme. Let me examine the relative position. In 1908 the pensioner got 5s., and possibly 10s., at the age of 70. In 1926 he got 10s. at the age of 65, provided he had contributed to the scheme. It is not true to say that the age has been universally lowered from 70 to 65. It has been lowered only in the case of those persons who have contributed to the pension. Those who have not contributed still have to wait until they attain the age of 70 before they get the pension of 10s. a week.
Let me examine the cost to the State of the working of the scheme. For the first full year, 1910, the cost was £8,500,000. For the first full year of the new scheme, 1928–29, the cost was £12,500,000. That is to say, over a period of 18 years the increased contribution that has been made by the State is just £4,000,000. During those critical years the old age pensioners must have passed through an exceedingly difficult time, because costs were rising against


them—so much so that, I quite admit, in 1919 the Government raised the old age pension from 5s. to 10s.

Captain Conant: Has the hon. Member not omitted from his calculation the cost to the State of the non-contributory pension?

Mr. Richards: I have included that. I am including the total rise in the cost to the State as between those two dates. I am not including the total cost, because I do not think that is fair. The finances of the new scheme, as we all know, are based on a long period of permanence. There is no necessity to quarrel with that idea. We have heard a great deal to-day about the necessity for a permanent scheme. Such a scheme should cover a long period of years.
One or two other facts have been emphasised to-day, first of all, that the cost to the State is likely to mount up for a number of years. The reason for that is that there were a great many births between 1850 and 1890, and another fact is that it is largely affected by the improvement in public health, as the hon. Lady pointed out, with the result that there are a larger proportion of older people surviving. It has been estimated that the cost to the State, which was £12,500,000 in 1928, the first full year, will amount by 1965 to £21,500,000, after which—and this is an important point—it will decline very rapidly. The scheme of pensions is very ingeniously linked up with war pensions. War pensions are a declining liability, and if, on the other hand, the liability for old age pensions tends to increase up to a certain point, the liability on war pensions declines. To-day the liability in respect of war pensions is about £40,000,000 but it is calculated that by 1965 it will be only £10,000,000. The State is using the decline on the one in order, quite rightly, to supplement the other. In 1965, and even before that time, a boy who enters industry and pays his contribution will receive absolutely nothing from the State when he comes to claim his pension.
We are gradually changing over from a pure pensions scheme to a contributory scheme, and the result in the long run will be that the old age pension and other schemes will really be self-sufficing and carrying their own burden. The responsibility for old age pensions is a dwindling

liability and our case on these benches is that in view of that, the Government surely ought to find some means of assisting the people we have heard so much about to-day.
I would like to consider the value of the pension from the point of view of its purchasing power. When the pension was first given in 1908 the cost-of-living figure stood at 97, and the pension was 5s. When we came to 1920 the cost-of-living figure stood at 269, and, although the pension had been increased to 10s. by that time, the value of the pension was 3s. 4d. When we came to 1921, another year with a very high figure for cost-of-living, the value of the 10s. pension was 4s. In 1928, the first year under the new scheme, the value of the 10s. pension was 5s. 5d., and to-day, on the cost-of-living figure given in the "Labour Gazette," the value of the old age pension of 10s. is 6s. 2d. Consequently our argument is that we ought not to pretend to give these people 10s., but we ought to do something to supplement it, so that the purchasing value of what they get will really be equivalent to 10s. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening was very eloquent on the change that has taken place in the standards of life of the people, and we appreciate that that is so. But here are people whose claims, because they are old, are really fundamental. They require more delicate feeding and more warmth, and if they are to participate in the improved standards of living about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so eloquent, we think that, on all these grounds, the pension ought to be immediately considerably increased.

6.36 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): Nearly a year ago the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) submitted a Motion in this House on a private Member's day very similar to the one we are now discussing. The hon. Member proposed reforms in the old age pensions schemes with two objects—first of all to encourage elderly workers to retire from industry and so to contribute something towards the solution of the unemployment problem, and, secondly, the removal of certain anomalies in the pensions schemes, some of which are admitted on all sides, and many of them inseparable from any pensions system.
To-day the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson)—and I am glad to see that he is still fresh after his efforts last night, as I am—is somewhat more ambitious. He has not only taken into his Motion the two points that were discussed last year, but he proposes at least by implication that the old age pension should be of such a sum as in itself to provide a reasonable standard of life for the recipient without money from other sources; but I observe that the Motion is delicately reticent as to exactly what that standard is to be. The Motion itself and the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder and of others who have spoken in support of it, must inevitably make a powerful appeal to those feelings of humanity of which I am glad to say no party in this House has ever presumed to claim a monopoly. I do not suppose that any hon. Gentleman in this House would envy the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-day in the exercise of his not infrequent duty of having to quench the generous ardours of his colleagues by the application of what I might perhaps describe as a cold financial hose; but my task to-day has been made very much easier by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. I should like to congratulate, if I may do so without pomposity, both of them on courageous and realistic speeches, at a time when it is essential that Members should be realists.

Mr. Kelly: Even the Treasury.

Captain Wallace: I should like at the outset to re-emphasise two very essential facts which we ought to keep in mind. The first is the present cost of old age pensions, and the second, and more important, is the extent of the future commitments into which we have already definitely entered. As the Mover of the Amendment pointed out, pensions this year cost £95,000,000, of which £65,000,000 comes from the Exchequer. Even if it is not possible for us to make any improvement in the conditions, there will be an automatic growth in our commitments of pretty formidable proportions. The changes of recent years in the birth and mortality rates are, from the point of view of pensions at any rate, and indeed, from other points of view as well, extremely disquieting. There is going to be a considerable change in the next two or three decades in the age distribution of our population. The 1931

Census showed that the number of persons over 65 in this country was 11 per cent. of those aged from 15 to 64. It is estimated that in 1955 that percentage will have risen to 16 and in 1975 to 21, and therefore, as various hon. Gentlemen have already pointed out, there will inevitably fall larger burdens upon a smaller number of persons in productive employment. In 40 years, which is a time before everyone who is now entering insurance will be drawing benefit, the cost of old age pensions, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bewdley (Captain Conant) has told the House, will be £147,000,000, of which no less than £113,000,000 will come from the Exchequer. Therefore, I suggest that in dealing with every proposal for improving the conditions of old age pensions we have to remember first of all the immediate cost, and, secondly, and more important, the cost that we are laying on the next generation, remembering that they are already committed to an increase of very nearly £50,000,000.
The Motion begins by claiming that the present scale of pensions is inadequate to provide a reasonable standard of living. The Mover did not define what he considered a reasonable standard, and the Seconder said that he was not to be taken as being committed to Labour's present plan. It is essential that the House—and I feel quite certain that we shall have it from the right Gentleman who is to follow me—should have some definite indication as to precisely what is meant by a reasonable standard, in order that the House before they vote may see what that means in terms of money. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion are espousing the 1934 Labour plan of £1 a week at 60, because that plan was very definitely and specifically rejected in the later Labour plan which I believe is sometimes rather irreverently referred to as the "Teddy Bear" Plan. [Interruption.] I am bound to assume that the standard of adequate maintenance is that outlined in Labour's latest pension plan, which was subjected to a detailed examination by my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Scotland, in last year's Debate. My right hon. Friend showed—and I do not think that it has ever been contradicted—that if that particular scheme were placed upon a financial basis which was fair to


contributors it would bring the total cost of pensions in 40 years time to £259,000,000 of which £194,000,000 would have to be provided by the Exchequer. In other words, it added £81,000,000 to the automatic increase of £50,000,000, to which we are already committed. That is the figure which I would like to ask the House to have in mind when they go into the Lobby, as they have been asked to do this evening with a very full sense of responsibility as to what they are voting for.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman keep in mind, when he is advising his supporters with regard to voting, that in my address I appealed, first of all, to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this plan, and secondly, that, if he could not go all the way, he should try and give some improvement to the old age pensioners and widows of this country. Therefore he is asking them to vote not only against the whole plan but against any progress with regard to these pensions.

Captain Wallace: We are not in Committee and we have to vote either for the Motion or the Amendment.

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that it is as important to maintain these old people as to maintain the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

Captain Wallace: Before I sit down I propose to deal with that point. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is going to follow me from the Opposition Front Bench, to say exactly what is meant by this proposal. Several hon. Members have twitted me about a statement I made in reply to a Supplementary Question about a fortnight ago. As that was a reply to a Supplementary Question, I am certain that hon. Members will credit me with a perfectly honest reply, straight from the heart. I do not retract one single word that I said, and I am glad to notice that one or two hon. Members on my own side have had the courage to endorse that statement. I have never heard it claimed in any responsible quarter that the payment of a pension of 10s. a week is enough for those who are entirely devoid of other resources; and I should not have the face to come to this Box or to stand in any other part of the House and suggest that it was.
The old age pension was intended to provide a minimum benefit in supplementation of savings, annuities, private benefit funds and superannuation schemes, all of which we should encourage as far as we can. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said that the supplementary amount must come from one of two sources. He put relatives first, and the local authorities second. Surely, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; and it is true that the other resources to which I have referred, savings, annuities, private benefit funds and so on, do make it possible for the majority of old age pensioners to live on this sum of 10s.

Mr. Stephen: No. You have no evidence. They are starving.

Captain Wallace: In the minority of cases, where further supplementation is necessary, these people go, and properly go, to a source whose only criterion is need. All of us hope to live to see the day when conditions in this country will be such that this will not be necessary; but if it is proposed, as appears implicit in the Motion, to remodel the whole old age pension system and make full maintenance the criterion, then surely the logical corollary is that whenever additions to the existing sums are necessary in order to reach that standard, they should be subject to a test of means. I fail to see how it is possible to graft a scheme of that kind on to a contributory scheme. It must be remembered that more than three-fourths of the pensions that are being paid to-day are contributory pensions, which are in the nature of insurance benefits. People receive a specific benefit in return for a definite premium which they have paid.

Mr. Lipson: If this Motion were carried would it not be our suggestion that the Government should bring forward such reform as it thought necessary? Is not that the point at issue? I feel rather worried as to how I shall vote.

Captain Wallace: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my speech in my own way. It may he perhaps a clumsy way, but I intend to deal seriously with all these points if I am allowed to do so. It is certain that by however much and in whatever proportion of cases the old age pension at present falls short of providing that adequate maintenance for people who


are without other resources which everybody in this House would like to see provided, it comes a great deal nearer to doing so than when the rate of pension was fixed. The hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) pointed out that when the old age pension was fixed in 1919 the cost of living was 225 as against the present figure of 156. Therefore, the pension has risen in purchasing power by about 4s. 6d. since that date. If the pension were meant to provide an adequate standard of maintenance, then one might logically expect its amount to be related to the cost of living. If this had been done the rate would be about 7s. to-day.
The second point in the Motion is that the old age pension at its present level does not encourage the retirement of elderly workers. That point was ably and comprehensively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome. We must all seriously ask ourselves what increase in pension we can envisage which would act as a sufficient inducement for a man earning, say, 40s. to 45s. a week to retire. Presumably, also, the pension would have to be conditional on actual retirement. That, again, brings us back to the Labour plan. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Frome in saying that such retirements as might be induced would not really represent any substantial contribution to the unemployment problem. I do not believe that in their heart of hearts there are many hon. Members opposite—who have much greater experience in these matters than I have—who really believe that a scheme of that kind would act as a substantial relief of unemployment. Clearly, there is no justification for increasing the pensions of 2,500,000 people merely in order to induce a certain number of the 300,000 old persons now at work to retire. Moreover, I do not think any one has ever contended that for every elderly worker who retired under such a scheme a young one would come into a job.
A further point raised in the Motion is the question of anomalies. The difficulty about putting right all the anomalies, or alleged anomalies, is that it would cost a lot of money. If time were available I should be very glad to take the House through the precise implications of the various proposals made in differentquarters for remedying

anomalies, and to express them to the House in terms of millions of pounds per year. I will mention one, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan). He wanted wives of insured pensioners to get the pension even if they were not 65. If they got the pension at any age as soon as their husbands qualified, that is, if, when the husband got it at 65 his wife also got it even if she were only 25, the cost would be £6,500,000 a year now, rising to £8,000,000 in ten years. If the concession were limited to wives over 6o years, it would cost £4,000,000, rising to £4,750,000 in 10 years. There was one further point which was brought to my notice by my hon. Friend, and I must frankly admit that it is one of some complexity and one of which I am not fully seized. I have not the slightest idea how much it would cost. All that I can say is that, as it is a new one on me, I will certainly look into it very carefully.
Now I must leave the Motion and come to the Amendment. I want to make it clear that the Amendment begins by accepting the desirability of extending the pension schemes, as and ashen practicable, on a sound financial basis. I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite who took part in the pensions Debate last year believe that the policy of the Government is jam yesterday and jam to-morrow but never jam to-day. This is certainly not one of the jam days. The argument that has been advanced in many quarters that because you can find money for war you can find money for increased pensions is an argument which is entirely unsound. An exceptional, temporary emergency such as a war, or the immediate threat of war, can be met by exceptional emergency measures, such as borrowing, heavy taxation and the like, but a heavy increase in old age pensions would not be a temporary expedient. It would not only be permanent, but it would be increasingly costly as time goes on. I should like to know whether hon. Members who will go gaily and, I am certain, sincerely, into the Lobby in support of the Motion, really suggest that we should have in this country war finance methods in perpetuity. Borrowing for emergency is one thing, but borrowing for expenditure which is both permanent and increasingly costly is a very different proposition.
It has been suggested in more than one quarter—I think it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir Robert Tasker)—that the extra cost need not fall on the State but that the contribuors should pay for the whole cost, or that they should contribute something more than the actuarial worth of the pension benefits they themselves will receive. But it would surely be unfair, for example, to ask the people whose contributions to contributory pensions give them an insurance benefit for which they have paid the necessary premium, to meet, over and above that benefit, an increase in non-contributory pensions. What is going to happen when, as is absolutely inevitable, the cost of the scheme continually rises and the number of contributors continually decreases? I am bound to say that, so far as I am able to appreciate it, the probable effect of the financial method adopted in the Labour plan for pensions, is that the rate of contribution must go on increasing from time to time if the same rate of benefit is to be maintained. That situation is clearly envisaged in their pamphlet. For our part we could not propose a scheme which would be so obviously unjust.
Here I would again emphasise a point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Frame, which was one of the most important made in the whole of this Debate. Any pension scheme to be of the slightest good to its beneficiaries and its potential beneficiaries must stand the test of permanency. It is no good saying that you are going to give so much a week now but that at some future time the benefit may have to be reduced. It must stand the test of permanency in so far as it guarantees that the benefit will not fall, although there will always be the possibility of some future improvement in the scheme, just as the pension schemes have been improved from time to time in the past.
Finally, I must bring the House down to the financial implications of national Defence at the present time. I am not in a position to give any new and sensational figures of a later date than those with which the House is already painfully familiar. We are faced with an expenditure of £343,000,000 in the current year on Defence, £253,000,000 of which has to be found out of revenue. And Supplementary

Estimates are inevitable. We have been told also that the Estimate of £1,500,000,000 for the five-year Defence programme is certain to be exceeded. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington said, the Secretary of State for Air announced in the House only a few days ago that the Air Estimates for next year will be £200,000,000. At this moment, I do not think the vital need for Defence is denied by anybody in the House, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—

Mr. Mander: I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to do me any injustice. No one in the House is more anxious than I am to see proper defences maintained, and I have always voted for the whole of the Government's rearmament schemes. I do not know what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman means by his reference to me.

Captain Wallace: Certainly, the last thing I should want to do would be to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I understood from what he said that he had a plan which, if it were put into operation, would mean that no rearmament expenditure would be necessary.

Mr. Lansbury: I have a better plan.

Captain Wallace: It is true that some of this immense expenditure is met by borrowing, but we all know that by far the largest part of it is raised year by year from the revenue provided by taxes of different kinds, and we all know to our cost that heavy taxes are at present laid upon every section of the community. It is one thing to talk about adding a few millions to the Budget in the month of November, and a very different thing to agree to it in April or May. Since the proposals in the Labour plan, on a very conservative estimate would mean an increase of something like £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 in the Budget next year, and £75,000,000 if we adopted the idea of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I want to put this to the House. This summer we were faced with a gap of £30,000,000 in the Budget, and only £7,750,000 of that gap was filled by indirect taxation. I remember the protests which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I met with on this; they were very sincere and very


genuine. I may add that 6d. on the Income Tax, with all that that means in repercussions upon trade and industry, only brought in the other £22,250,000.
Now, the House is up against realities, and it is with great respect, and with a deep sense of the difficulty of addressing hon. Members opposite upon a subject of which they know a great deal more than I do, that I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to show to-night a sense of responsibility and a sense of proportion. It is no exaggeration to say that Defence is the first essential at this moment, and in a sense the greatest social service, for without security for this country every single social service which we have is potentially in jeopardy. Defence is extremely costly. We have to find the money somehow. The necessary measures of taxation are already very severe; any further addition to the financial burden which all classes in this country will have to shoulder next year increases the risk to that stability and that prosperity which are both vitally necessary to the national revenue from which Defence measures and social services alike derive. To put that stability and prosperity in any greater jeopardy at this moment would, in my view, be the worst possible service to the nation as a whole and not least to the millions of people who now benefit from our social service system. For that reason, I must advise hon. Members to reject the Motion and accept the Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not propose to follow to any considerable extent the arguments contained in the latter part of the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. As regards expenditure on Defence, I would only say that in the opinion of hon. Members on these benches—I hope the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) will not leave the Chamber, since I intend to deal with the speech she made—the cost of this Defence is due to the foreign policy which has been adopted by the Government and that if the correct foreign policy had been followed during the last few years, the amount that would be required for Defence would be entirely different from what it is now. As to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks about stability, I maintain that there can be no

real stability in any country while there is discontent caused by a large section of the population going miserably short at the same time as unbounded luxury prevails at the other end of the social scale.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and several hon. Members who spoke before he did, asked what precisely is the meaning of the Motion that has been moved by my hon. Friend and where we stand with regard to the Labour party's scheme for old age pensions. I will answer the second question first by saying that I and those who sit with me on these benches are absolutely behind our scheme for old age pensions. We consider it to be a thoroughly practicable one, and I may say that, having had a great deal to do with finance and having filled the position which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now occupies, I would not have supported or assisted in the production of that scheme unless I believed that it would be completely workable and practicable. That remains our objective and that is the scheme which hon. Members on these benches, when they sit on the benches opposite and form a Government, intend, if it has not already been put into effect otherwise, to bring forward and carry into effect. It may be that in the course of time there will be some modifications, but broadly that is our scheme, and we stand by it. Of course, we are not at the present moment in a position to bring forward our own Bill, for we are not the Government of the day, and the House, by a very large majority, supports the present Government. Any hon. Member voting for this particular Motion is not necessarily voting for our whole scheme. All that we say in the Motion is that the present pensions are inadequate, and that they do not have the effect of giving an opportunity to elderly workers to retire. May I say, in passing, that no hon. Member on these benches has ever suggested, as was claimed by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the main object of this scheme is to improve the position with regard to unemployment.

Captain Wallace: I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to have a wrong impression of what I said. I did not suggest that that was the main objective. I said that I did not think that incidental objective would be achieved.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I quite agree that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, but the hon. Lady the Member for Frome went so far as to say that £85,000,000 was a great deal of money to spend for the purpose of introducing a few extra people into employment as a consequence of the numbers that would be retired Hon. Members on these benches have never said that our scheme is mainly or principally designed to cure unemployment.

Mrs. Tate: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I never said that was the principal object of the scheme, but it is put forward as being one of the desirable features of the scheme. Therefore, one has a right to criticise it on that basis.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Certainly, the hon. Lady and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman are entitled to argue that it might not do very much in that direction, but the hon. Lady made the remark—as she will see if she reads the OFFICIAL REPORT—which I have attributed to her, and I think I am entitled to say that that remark was utterly unjustified. The third point of the Motion is that there are anomalies which call for redress. I do not believe that is denied in any part of the House. We maintain that the House should demand that necessary reforms shall be introduced without delay. Naturally, if those reforms are to be introduced, they will have to be introduced by the Government of the day, and unless the Government are converted overnight, of course their proposals will not be the particular proposals contained in the pamphlet of the Labour party, but the removal of some grievances would be a step in the right direction.
Having dealt with the questions which I was asked, I come now to the main subject of the Motion. I wish first of all to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who introduced the Motion, both on his good fortune in the ballot and on the very able and successful speech with which he moved the Motion. I should like then to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who, in seconding the Motion, made a most moving appeal to the House. I was glad also to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker), one of whose constituents I am, in support of the Motion; and even though the hon.

Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) said that he intends to vote for the Amendment, at any rate he showed that he supports a very large part of that for which we stand.
My congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Captain Conant), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Lady the Member for Frome, who seconded it, stand on rather different grounds. I congratulate them on the ingenious nature of the arguments which they advanced. Of course, their main case—and they put it with great solemnity—was the case of "guns or butter," and the Financial Secretary also put that case very largely at the end of his speech. I shall have something to say with regard to this before I finish my remarks, but I would like now to deal with the miscellaneous arguments of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. Lady who seconded it. I noted with interest and a certain amount of surprise that one of the principal arguments made by the Mover of the Amendment was more or less directly at variance with the argument of the Seconder. Therefore, to a large extent, those two cancel one another out. The hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley objected to the Labour scheme because under it, he said, the younger people would be paying for what are now the older generation, whereas the hon. Member for Frome objected to the scheme because it would, she said, throw too large a burden on future generations.
The fact is that under the existing system of society the young are to-day paying for the old. They are paying for the old partly through their contributions to the rates and very largely because it is on the younger generation, the members of their own family, that the old people who cannot get adequate pensions have to depend for their support. Moreover, a great number of the younger generation are to-day investing in various insurance schemes and are paying large premiums for their own old age. As anyone knows who has investigated insurance, there is no doubt that a very great deal of their money is being paid away, not actually to obtain benefits, but in order to carry expensive overhead charges which are part of these insurance societies. One of the objects we have in view is to enable the comprehensive machinery of the State to carry the burden of overhead charges in


an entirely different proportion from what it is at the present time.
Both the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley and the hon. Lady want to postpone the introduction of any better scheme for old age pensions to a more favourable date. In asking that, they have entirely neglected what is, after all, the major fact in the situation, and that is that every year the introduction of a comprehensive scheme is postponed the financial difficulties become greater. They become greater for precisely the reason which the hon. Lady used in the opposite direction. Let me correct some of her figures. She told us that the number of persons over 65 in this country was increasing at the rate of 2,000,000 every decade. The actual fact is that the increase is expected to be 1,250,000 in two decades, a very different thing, but still a matter of considerable importance. The point I am making is that, so far from making it easier to postpone this reform to later years, the facts quoted by the hon. Lady make it important that we should deal with the matter at once. Most of these schemes, which are partly or wholly contributory, have the effect that anyone entering the scheme at 16 years of age provides entirely his own old age pension, but the trouble is that there is a very large number of people who are over 16, some of them much older, and it is for these people that the State has to provide a certain amount of money. If you postpone the introduction of this scheme for another ten years this part will be very much heavier than it is at present, and if you postpone it for 20 years that same part will be still further increased. The fact that the bulge in the population is moving to an older period makes the introduction of any scheme in the years to come increasingly difficult, and it is, therefore, of supreme importance that before that time arrives this scheme should be introduced and put into operation.
Now I come to what is really the main case against the proposal, namely, that the country cannot afford it. But the fact is that old people are already being kept in one of two or three ways. The Financial Secretary admits that a pension of 10s. a week is inadequate to provide wholly for the old person. What he requires in addition is to some extent met out of public assistance, and so far as it is met out of public assistance there is no

difference to the community whether it is met in that way or by a direct burden on the Exchequer. The only difference is that in one case it is met with an honourable acquiescence on the part of the recipient, and in the other it greatly offends his dignity and self-respect. In asking that the cost should be removed from public assistance to the Exchequer we are asking for something which will greatly inure to the diginity of our people. But, in part, the cost is met by the relatives of the old person and in so far as it is met in this way, it means that we are imposing on working class families a burden which does involve some curtailment in their own necessities of life. It means malnutrition for their children, a weakening of the family. In so far as the cost is not met in either of these ways it means that the old age pensioner goes terribly short and is even destitute. That is a disgrace to the country, and it also involves a loss of trade and a loss of revenue in the taxation which the old age pensioner would otherwise make to the Revenue. The hon. Lady presented a terrible picture of what is going to happen, because she said she saw no signs that the productivity of the country was increasing.

Mrs. Tate: I said as compared with other nations.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The hon. Lady said that she saw no signs of an increase in the production of this country which would enable us to bear the economic burden of looking after our own people decently. If the hon. Lady has seen no such signs, it is because she has not read recent literature on the subject. If she had studied a Cambridge survey based on the census of production, to which I referred a short time ago, she would have found that the distinguished economists concerned were of opinion that in the five years 1930 to 1935 the output of production in this country increased by no less than 20 per cent. per employé; that is at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum per employé.
Now when we turn from the economic to the financial implications we have to distinguish carefully between the contribution of the State and the contribution made by the persons concerned. The facts are that very large numbers of working people at the present time are paying large sums of money, much of which is frittered away, in an endeavour


to provide for their own old age, and if they were asked whether they would prefer to have the scheme put forward in the Labour proposals, which the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley says are so unfair to them, or whether they would have none at all, I have very little doubt that they would reply in favour of our scheme. The arguments against it on that ground cannot possibly be sustained.
Why is there a prospect of our Motion being defeated and the Amendment substituted in its place? Broadly it is because the Tory party as a whole, with some honourable exceptions, has a different set of values from hon. Members on this side of the House. The Financial Secretary claimed that no party has a monopoly of sympathy for old persons. That is no doubt true, but what we claim is that the Tory party has not the imagination to see the issue in its true proportions. I remember some years ago when old age pensions were first introduced a Noble Lord who had been awarded a very large sum by way of superannuation benefit by a grateful country, and who had been paid a large salary all his life, getting up in the House of Lords and saying that he was going

to vote against old age pensions because they would pauperise the people who would receive them. It is rather sickening to me when I hear people who have ample on which to live lives of luxury, and who think that the State can afford to allow them to go on in that way, talk about the country not being able to afford the pittance which is required to give these other people a decent standard of life. It may be that the Tory party can be pushed into a certain measure of reform. We have tried to stimulate their imagination for many years past. I am reminded of the story of the man who was driving a motor car. He was asked how fast it could go and he said, "Thirty or 40 miles an hour or 5o if I push her." Then his questioner asked, "How fast would it go if we both pushed her?" I think we should get on with these reforms much quicker if the pushing did not come solely from this side of the House but from the Tory party as well.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 187.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[7. 30p. m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lathan, G.


Adams, D. M, (Poplar, S)
Foot, D. M.
Lawson, J. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Frankel, D.
Leach, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Gallacher, W.
Leonard, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V, (H'lsbr.)
Gardner, B. W.
Leslie, J. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lipson, D. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, D. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lunn, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Barnes, A. J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.


Batey, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGovern, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley(M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maclean, N.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacNeill Weir, L.


Bromfield, W.
Groves, T. E.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mander, G. le M.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F.


Burke, W. A.
Hardle, Agnes
Mathers, G.


Cape, T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Messer, F.


Chater, D.
Hayday, A.
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morgan, J. (York, W. R., Doncaster)


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cove, W. G.
Hicks, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Dalton, H.
John, W.
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, G. H.


Day, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G.


Dobbie, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirby, B. V.
Parker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Parkinson, J. A.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Pearson, A.




Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Silverman, S. S.
Viant, S. P.


Poole, C. C.
Simpson, F. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Watson, W. McL.


Pritt, D. N.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Welsh, J. C.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Westwood, J.


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.
White, H. Graham


Ridley, G.
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Riley, B.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ritson, J,
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Rothschild, J. A. de
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Sanders, W. S,
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)



Seely, Sir H. M.
Thorne, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sexton, T. M.
Thurtle, E.
Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ellis


Shinwell, E.
Tinker. J. J.
Smith.


Silkin, L.
Tomlinton, G.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Glutkstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Apsley, Lord
Gower, Sir R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Granville, E. L.
Peake, O.


Balniel, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Lieut-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Radford, E. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bernays, R. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Blair, Sir R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Higgs, W. F.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hopkinson, A.
Salt, E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Channon, H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Scott, Lord William


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kimball, L.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Courthope Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'rr'ld)


Cox, Trevor
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Critchley, A.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Train, Sir J.


Crowder, J. F. E,
Liddall, W. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davison, Sir W. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De Chair, S. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Warrender, Sir V.


De la Bère, R.
McKie, J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Doland, G. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dunglass, Lord
Marsden, Commander A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wragg, H.


Elliston, Capt. G. S
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Everard, W. L.
Munro, P.



Fildes, Sir H.
Nail, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Captain Conant and Mrs. Tate.

Question put "That the proposed words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes 169; Noes, 149.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt-Col. G. J.
Everard, W. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fildes, Sir H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Furness, S. N.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir R. V.
Peake, O.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Petherick, M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Radford, E. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross, Major Sir R D. (Londonderry)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Higgs, W. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hunloke, H. P.
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hunter, T.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Smith Sir Louis, (Hallam)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kimball, L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Spens, W. P.


Cox, Trevor
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Less-Jones, J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Critchley, A.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Train, Sir J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De Chair, S. S.
McKie, J. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


De la Bère, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Doland, G. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


 Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eastwood, J. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wragg, H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emery, J. F.
Munro, P.



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Nall, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Conant and Mrs. Tate.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Chater, D.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Granville, E. L.


Adamson, W. M.
Collindridge, F.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Daggar, G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dalton, H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Groves, T. E.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Batey, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bellenger, F. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hardie, Agnes


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Benson, G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Bevan, A.
Foot, D. M.
Hayday, A.


Bromfield, W.
Frankel, D.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Gallacher, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Buchanan, G.
Gardner, B. W.
Hicks, E. G.


Burke, W. A.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Hopkin, D.


Cape, T.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Charleton, H. C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
John, W.







Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Montague, F.
Silverman, S. S.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Simpson, F. B.


Kelly, W. T.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B, Lees-


Kirby, B. V.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Kirkwood, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Lathan, G.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stephen, C.


Lawson, J. J.
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Leach, W.
Owen, Major G.
Stewart, W. J. (H' ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Leonard, W.
Paling, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Leslie, J, R.
Parker, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lipson, D. L.
Parkinson, J. A.
Thorne, W.


Logan, D. G.
Pearson, A.
Thurtle, E.


Lunn, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tinker, J. J.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Poole, C. C.
Tomlinson, G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


McGhee, H. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Watkins, F. C.


McGovern, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watson, W. McL.


MacLaren, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Welsh, J. C.


Maclean, N.
Ridley, G.
Westwood, J.


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Riley, B.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


MacNeill Weir, L.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mander, G. le M.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Marshall, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Woods, G. S, (Finsbury)


Mathers, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.



Maxton, J.
Sexton. T. M.
TELLERS FORTHE NOES.—


Messer, F.
Shinwell, E.
Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ellis


Milner, Major J.
Silkin, L.
Smith.


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the great value of the existing pension schemes to the social welfare of the nation, would welcome their further extension as and when practicable on a sound financial basis; but is of opinion that at a time when the prime necessity of strengthening the country's defences is placing a severe strain on the national finances, such extension would, besides placing a heavy direct burden both on industry and those employed in industry, involve such additional demands on the national Exchequer as would imperil that financial stability upon which depends the well-being of industry and employment and the maintenance of all the existing social services.

DISTRESSED AREAS.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I beg to move:
That, realising the acute distress prevailing in many districts due to lack of trade and consequent unemployment, this House is of opinion that as an immediate measure the Special Areas Act should be substantially amended and made applicable to all distressed areas pending a comprehensive scheme of economic reconstruction to establish national prosperity.
This Motion is of such a character that I am optimistic regarding its prospects of receiving the assent of the House. It is a request that Parliament should deal fairly and equitably between those areas which are designated "Special Areas" and those which, though not so designated, yet possess a depth and extent of unemployment equal to, and in some cases in excess of, that in the Special

Areas themselves. There is a further request that the Special Areas Act should be drastically improved and amended, and that extended powers should be given to the Commissioners and others affected, and, further, it is stated that in order to deal with the larger problems which must ensue, in regard to unemployment and kindred great subjects, State action, planning and reorganisation are imperatively necessary. Does the House appreciate the seriousness of this Special Areas problem? Many hon. Members, I think, fail to recognise the fact that, although we have passed through a period of four years of rapidly reviving trade, yet the Special Areas have remained in a state of chronic depression. In fact, their position has grown worse with the passage of time,. They are now in a worse position, as compared with the prosperous parts of the country, than they were in during the great depression at the beginning of this decade. Commenting upon that situation the "Economist," in July of this year, stated for the benefit of all concerned:
Unemployment statistics, the researches of the Pilgrim Trust and the stark revelations in the recent report of the Unemployment Assistance Board have revealed only too clearly that last year's relative prosperity did little more in the distressed regions of the North and Wales than throw into relief their distress and poverty.
That commentary is one which this House ought to bear in mind. To-night we are raising again, as I hope we shall continue to raise until a solution for it has


been discovered, one of the most persistent and the greatest domestic problem confronting the country. It is true that there has been expenditure upon these areas in the creation of trading estates and other forms of localised help, but the pools of unemployment are deep and wide, and these have scarcely been affected. Indeed, in spite of our efforts, the position appears to be growing gradually worse. What are the latest figures obtainable in relation to both the general unemployment situation in the country and the unemployment situation in the Special Areas? I take the figures of the number of unemployed persons aged 14 and over, insured and uninsured, and on the registers of Employment Exchanges on 17th October, 1938, as compared with 18th October, 1937. The total figure for England, Wales and Scotland on 18th October last year was 1,390,249, and on 17th October this year the figure had risen to 1,781,227. It had increased by the startling number of 390,978.
I pass to the figures relating to the Special Areas for the same periods. In Durham and Tyneside a year ago the number of unemployed was 98,969, and the figure has risen this year to 116,500. In West Cumberland, last year's number of 9,628 has risen to 10,548; that in South Wales from 98,641 to 108,897; and in South-West Scotland from 58,744 to 68,147. The total figure for all those areas last year was 265,982, and this year it is 304,092, or an increase in the number of unemployed in these Special Areas of 38,110. It may interest the House to know what were the percentages of unemployed in those areas in those two periods. In Durham and Tyneside a year ago the percentage was 17·4, and this year it is 20·5. In West Cumberland the percentage last year was 25·1, and this year it is 27·6. In South Wales the percentage last year was 22·5, and this year it is 25·1 In South-West Scotland a percentage of 15·7 has risen to 18·5. Those figures must give concern, which certainly ought to give concern to the Government and to the country generally.
The Commissioner for the Special Areas has not been idle. He has been laborious and exacting; he has fulfilled his duty, in my judgment, to the best of his ability, having regard to the limited powers which

he possesses. Grants to assist industry up to the end of October this year—I am quoting from his own publication—amounted to £5,347,000. Grants for land settlement, etc., were £3,262,000. Grants towards the cost of schemes urgently necessary in the interests of public health were £6,110,000 and other grants £2,333,000, making a grand total of £17,052,000.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: For England and Wales?

Mr. Adams: Yes, for England and Wales. What has been the result of these operations, and has this method of approach to the situation been successful as far as the Special Areas are concerned? I take as an example the Team Valley Trading Estate. There were 95 factories finished at the end of October, 83 occupied and 76 in production, employing 1,603 persons, but the total unemployed on Tyneside and in Durham exceeded 130,000, and this year there has been an increase in that number over last year of 17,500, indicating that the position is not being adequately dealt with, at present anyhow, whatever the future may hold. The outlay of the North Eastern Trading Estates for factories, etc., was £1,460,000 and for other factories £72,000, making a total of no less than £1,532,000. The House will be interested in the totals employed in the whole of the new factories on all the estates in England and Wales. In the new factories they employed 3,553 and upon estate development and construction 2,299. These latter are but temporarily employed, and I understand that from week to week on certain of the estates dismissals are taking place. That gives us a total, temporarily and permanently employed, of only 5,852, and I repeat that the problem is not being approached by this House in a correct spirit and with the hope that it will be solved.
I would ask why, on the Team Valley Trading Estate, so many of the intending factory occupants were refused any relief of rent, rates, taxes, or National Defence Contribution, although Parliament had authorised the Commissioner to offer these inducements. I think it can be safely affirmed—so my information goes—that certain prospective tenants of factories on these trading estates were unable to accept the invitation in the absence of the


inducements which I have indicated. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the House some reply upon this important topic, and that if a mistake has been committed—I do not say that it has, and there may be sound reasons for this refusal—it will be rectified. I do know that some little time ago only three of these factories had received the inducement which the Commissioner was authorised to offer.
Who is responsible? The Treasury, in view of the unusual expenditure which has taken place on armaments. I will not and cannot say that reduction in the numbers of the unemployed have not taken place in various areas. It is a fact that they have, but that has been due to transfers and to emigration almost exclusively. We have seen the very flower of the workers leaving their native homes, unwillingly, driven at the point of the bayonet of penury, leaving behind them the older and in most cases non-employable men, and the very young. It is one of the melancholy commentaries on our industrial situation during the last few years that a mighty army of the very flower of our people, exceeding 40,000 in number, have left that area for other parts in search of employment. I know that to-day, in the London area, there are numerous good men from Durham, stalwart workers, anxious and eager for employment, who are out of work and who are begging, and praying to be sent back, some of them setting out to walk back to their homes in Durham. A situation painful to them, to the locality from which they come, and to all concerned with these refugees.
In these Special Areas there has been a vast investment of social capital. The expenditure upon those who have left has been heavy. We on this side contend that any policy which drives from an industrial area the best of its workers, upon whom the local authority has, in the nature of things, invested great sums, is a blunder of the first magnitude. The Special Areas are the seats of our basic industries, and industry should be preserved and nurtured there and should not be taken elsewhere, yet we have had the Government offering the most stubborn front to appeals which have been made to Ministers in this House for the

location of industries. We have the spectacle of two great centures of population, London and Birmingham, to which our industrial population is flocking from all parts of the North. We have been denied the location of industries, and the Government leave industrialists from abroad to make their own selection. Those who have been great beneficiaries at the hands of this Parliament in the matter of tariff protection have been permitted, without let or hindrance and without the slightest consideration for the known interests of the workers of the country, to locate themselves in London and in Birmingham.
When one recognises the extreme vulnerability of these great cities—and however much we may be advised to the contrary there is no one in this House who seriously believes that in a period of warfare London is capable of being adequately protected—I say that in that direction we have made a great blunder, and although the hour is late, probably too late, if any further locations are to take place, they ought certainly to be excluded, unless there be the most substantial and overwhelming reason to the contrary, from proceeding to the South and should be located in the Special Areas. The Special Areas might be termed the arsenals of the nation. It is in the Special Areas that we find our basic industries in the main, and if this country were at war, it would be those very Special Areas, where factories are idle, where decay is setting in, both in the industrial population and in the industrial capital, which would be the great centres of our defences and which would be required for the manufacture of armaments and for shipbuilding and allied production.
I was privileged to hear yesterday Mr. Cleminson, General Manager of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. He painted a most startling picture of the declension in our shipbuilding and shipowning industries and in the trades which are dependent upon them. It is in these identical areas that shipbuilding took its rise and has shown its expansion, and to-day its declension, but it is in these areas, which for that very reason have the resources and investments for our future shipbuilding programmes, both for peace and for war, that there ought to be a reinstatement at


the earliest possible hour. The Special Areas are a melancholy proposition, viewed from any angle. Unemployment and under-employment means low incomes and reduced purchasing power for large communities, with the inevitable tendency to lower wages in these and other areas. Then we have this crushing municipal drain for relief purposes, where these local authorities' resources have been drained almost to extinction. The whole of the local authorities in the geographical area of Durham recently had a conference, the object of which was to inquire whether the time had arrived—and it had, in the judgment of many public representatives—when a halt must be called and when the Government must be called upon to meet the current financial obligations of those authorities.
I do not propose to detail the continuing poverty and hardships of individuals, families, traders, and local authorities and the loss of physical fitness, of morale, and of hope, with grinding despair and depression, which only those who pass through it can fully understand. Colleagues who will follow me will go into fuller detail under those heads. I desire to speak only of the national waste of unemployment at large. We have a mighty army of 1,750,000 unemployed persons. One of our economists has indicated—and I think he may have been taking Northumberland and Durham more particularly—that an adult skilled worker was a wealth producer to the extent of about £200 per annum. That does not seem to me to be a high estimate, but it indicates that unemployment must be losing this country annually something in the nature of £100,000,000, plus the vast sums spent upon unemployment relief and the indirect costs of destitution. It is fact that from November, 1920, to March, 1936, this State paid out for unemployment under various heads the colossal figure of £1,000,000,000. With a situation of that sort, the meagre efforts which have been made, and the refusal of the Government to take serious notice of the problem, one might almost be justified in believing that unemployment is not distasteful to capitalist governments.
The trading estates have been of considerable practical value, and I believe that our interests will be well served and we shall obtain the maximum advantage from them if they are extended and linked up to cover the whole country. The

Commissioner for the Special Areas, as my Motion implies, now works with very limited powers and in very limited areas. His work has been of a splendid character and ought to be amplified as we have indicated. The trading estates in time may certainly justify themselves, and the time has come for an extension of their numbers. It must be clear to the House that a new national effort must be made for the Special Areas. We on this side contend that the problem is so stubborn, as is unemployment generally, that a Minister of Cabinet rank ought to be appointed for this express purpose. He ought to have the power to locate industry. He ought to persuade the Cabinet that there should be set up forthwith in the colliery areas plants for the production of oil from coal. Even though the oil interests may be entrenched, so far as this Government is concerned, these, in the general interest of the State for both peace and war purposes, ought to be brushed aside. The State could provide clothing and other factories in the Special Areas. I am glad to see that, owing to the local patriotism of a Newcastle man, a clothing factory has been established in the Special Area of Gates-head-on-Tyne. The quality of the labour for that production, he asserts with great experience, is equal to that of the Midlands.
Low standards of income, both on relief and in employment, ought to be raised forthwith and the means test ought to be extinguished without delay. A shorter working day in all trades must be initiated if the rapid mechanisation is to be properly met. I was surprised that no attempt was made by Government direction in the Special Areas to make use of the unemployed on air-raid defence work. I am one of those who believe that until we have made provision for bomb-proof shelters in one form and another, particularly in the great centres of population and industry, we cannot give full protection to the industries, the workers or the population generally. In what better way could we employ our unemployed, who are a wasting asset, costly to themselves and to the State, than in such work? The school-leaving age should be raised for all to 15, with proper allowances and then to 16. Pensions ought to be provided to take the older workers out of industry at an earlier age. We cannot face the future successfully unless we deal with these two


classes in industry—the young between 14 and 16 and the older workers. If provision were adequately made for them it would leave scope, particularly with a rational shortening of hours, to absorb large numbers of our unemployed.
I come to a subject which is acute so far as the local authorities are concerned because of this problem. The burdens arising out of unemployment have reached colossal proportions. The county of Durham would require, if its debt were to be liquidated, a gift of £900,000. Other authorities are similarly faced with burdens so great as to be detrimental to industry developing in their areas. Therefore, these burdens ought to be liquidated, if not wholly, then in part, over a period of years, and there ought to be equalisation of rating burdens throughout the country. This foreshadows heavy expenditure, but it would only be expenditure commensurate with the magnitude of the problem. A Government recognising its responsibilities at this hour would be prepared to rise to the occasion.
The last suggestion embodied in the Motion is that State planning has become imperative in the face of new factors in world competition, particularly from the totalitarian States. I observe in to-day's Press that the German labour front is asking German industrialists working abroad to introduce Nazi measures into their operations. That is indicative of the form of competition from that source through which we are about to pass. I do not believe that so far as this country is concerned we are to see any submerging of labour's rights, but that is the demand—an acceleration and intensification of labour, an extension of hours, and an alteration of conditions such as we know to prevail in Germany. I say that in self-defence we must have State planning. There should be a national survey of all industries—financial, trading and those engaged in commercial operations. Only thus can we ascertain the aggregate resources and capacity of the State. Every industry ought to be scientifically examined, unified and modernised both as to capital and labour. In my judgment, while so far the community are agreed that the quality of capital ought to be always high, it is equally vital—

Mr. Magnay: Can we have this point made clear? Is the hon. Member advocating

the conscription of labour as well as of capital?

Mr. Adams: If I am advocating that I will indicate it to the House. I am advocating that the quality of labour is equally vital to the State and our industries. It should be of the highest standard in physical fitness and technical skill and be given a sense of security and interest in the industries with which it is concerned. The conditions which prevail and under which almost 5o per cent. of our industrial population are living in a state of malnutrition, should be brought to an end, in the rich State ours undoubtedly is. Penury among the workers should be as little known as leprosy. Even under modern capitalism the State must, in defence of its members, assume gradually the overlordship of its resources.
The statement will be made, of course, that this is merely Socialism, merely a suggestion that public ownership should supervene private ownership, but I repeat for the benefit of the House that in self-defence modern capitalism must agree that the overlordship by the State of its resources in finance, in land, in manufacturers and in transport should be established. The appeals which have been made during this Parliament by different industries for State co-operation and for financial aid show that a new day has dawned. Clearly we ought to be in the position to plan ahead for production, for consumption and for those trades upon which the State depends for its prosperity. There have been tentative approaches in the wide field of agriculture, partial it is true, and haphazard, but on the lines which I have indicated. Shipping, one of our great and vital industries, is now engaged in a survey of itself, and will submit the result to the Government for inevitable State intervention in defence of that industry. If that be good for shipping and for agriculture, why not for all other forms of the country's activity?
Finally, we may justly assert that we are living in an age of great potential wealth for the whole community. Upon the facts of production, poverty should be left far behind every member of the human family. Yet we have deliberately arrested wealth production, and are deliberately planning for scarcity. For what object? Not


the benefit of the community, not the enrichment of the State, but to ensure profit-making for modern capitalism. I ask by what other road we can enter into this great and dazzling heritage than upon the lines of national co-operation? In direct proportion to the steps taken in that great field of national endeavour will national prosperity ensue and unemployment and poverty be mitigated, overcome and finally disappear.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: I beg to second the Motion, which was moved by my hon. Friend in such a comprehensive speech that I am afraid little is left for me to say. We are debating the question which has often been before this House, and which is of vital importance to hundreds of thousands of our people who are domiciled in the Special Areas. It is suggested in the Motion that we should extend the Special Areas Act with a view to bringing in districts which, though distressed, are not termed Special Areas. In such districts the percentage of unemployment among insured workers is from 40 to 5o, and in justice to those people we should do what we can to come to their aid, particularly by an extension of the Special Areas in order to bring them in.
Even the Special Areas Act has not been the panacea for all our ills, because it falls far short of what we would like it to do on behalf of the Special Areas. The Government have not shouldered their responsibilities in regard to the Special Areas, or done as much as they could have done within the bounds of the Act. They have practically shelved the national planning of industry, and have not dealt with the question of the location of industry. We arc bound to admit that the Special Areas are suffering owing to those facts. The location of industry is a matter of paramount importance to us as a people. There is the strategic point of view. Not many weeks ago I listened to the Debate in this House upon air-raid precautions when speaker after speaker dealt with the vulnerability of London. Owing to London's size it was practically impossible to evolve a scheme that would give a measure of safety to its teeming millions of people. I was always under the impression that one of the fundamentals of defence was to remove an objective out of the range of attack or,

it that were impossible, to make the objective thin enough by deploying, in order to minimise the effect of attack.
The cost of defending a packed target like London is enormous, and thinking people in the London area realise that that is so. There are the questions of evacuation in case of air attack and of protection against gas, which protection is regarded as practically an impossibility in a heavily crowded zone. Air-raid shelters cost a tremendous amount in areas that are built up. Then, from the domestic point of view, we have to consider the effect of uprooting people, because of the omission to deal with the location of industry, and of planting vast numbers of those people in strange surroundings. We should be destroying long-established local patriotism, which is as important as national patriotism. Greatness has been built up on family and local loyality. Another problem is created by transferring people from districts which have had to bear the cost, by local rates, of nurturing and educating their people, and which are denuded of their finest citizens, while other areas, lower rated, reap a rich harvest at the expense of high-rated and poorer areas.
I sometimes think it would have been wise if we had taken heed of the findings of the various people who have been appointed by the Government to inquire into the conditions in various areas of the country, and to the remedies which they have suggested. In 1934, prior to the birth of the Special Areas Act, an investigator was sent to find the exact conditions prevailing in the county of Durham and to suggest remedies. With the indulgence of the House I would like to read the findings of the right hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace), who was sent by the Government to make that investigation. He said:
Durham and Tyneside can only escape from the vicious circle, where depression has created unemployment and unemployment intensified depression, by means of some positive external assistance.
Consideration of the form which such assistance should take inevitably raises questions of general policy. … The first of these questions is the attitude of the Government towards the location of industry. Any large scale movement of population involves an immense waste of social capital. Not only have houses, schools, roads, sewers, hospitals, etc., to be built in the newly settled area,


but there must always remain a residue of persons who cannot be transplanted and must therefore become a charge upon public funds.
The most outstanding example of the movement of population to a new area is the industrialisation and consequent rapid growth of Greater London. The evils, actual and potential, of this increasing agglomeration of human beings are so generally recognised as to need no comment.
It is suggested, therefore, that the time has come when the Government can no longer regard with indifference a line of development which, while it may possess the initial advantage of providing more employment, appears upon a long view to be detrimental to the best interests of the country; and the first practical step which could be taken towards exercising a measure of control in this direction would seem to be some form of national planning of industry.
Those findings were compiled four years ago by a representative of the National Government, but up to now nothing has been done to implement those findings and to seek to carry into effect that which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so ably suggested in his report.
As regards the location of industry, in 1936, in Greater London, 256 new factories were set up, employing 22,500 people. In 1937 there were 215 new factories, employing 15,850 people. In those two years, therefore, there were 471 new factories, employing 38,350 people. In Durham, Northumberland and the North Riding of Yorkshire, in 1936, there were 14 new factories set up, employing 4,800 people, and in 1937, 19 new factories, employing 1,350 people, or a total of 33 new factories employing 6,150 people. Thus, there were 471 factories in the Greater London area, against a total, in those two years, of only 33 in Durham, Northumberland and the North Riding of Yorkshire. In the first case the new factories employing 38,350 persons, and in Northumberland, Durham and the North of Yorkshire only 6,150. Surely that suggests that, whatever questions the Government may be concerned with, they are not concerned with the location of industry. From 1933 to 1937, in Durham, only seven new factories were set up, apart from the trading estates, and we who come from those areas, which are experiencing the increasing dangers of trade depression, are really concerned about what is happening there, about the apathy of the Government and their seeming unwillingness to deal with this problem which is vexing hundreds of thousands of our people.
It has been often said from the Front Bench opposite that, owing to the policy pursued by the Government, things are improving generally in the Special Areas. I would like to give one or two figures from various parts of Durham in order to prove that the contrary is the case. In the Bishop Auckland area, the unemployment figure in October, 1938, was 37 per cent. of the insured population, an increase of 3·9 over the 1937 figure. In Cockfield it was 41·9 per cent., or an increase of 16·9 over the 1937 figure; in Crook, 31·7 per cent., or an increase of 11·3 over a year ago; in Spennymoor, 26·4 per cent., or an increase of 7 per cent.; in the Boldon area, 31·3 per cent., or an increase of 10·8 per cent.; in South Shields, 31·2 per cent., or an increase of 3·5 per cent.; and in Sunderland, 26·8 per cent., or an increase of 3·7 per cent. over 1937. Taking Durham as a whole, one in five of the industrial insured population, and in Sunderland and South Shields one in four, are unemployed in a time of national prosperity. Taking Tyneside and Wearside, in October, 1937, Sunderland had 14,775 unemployed, South Shields 8,951, and Jarrow and Hebburn 5,161, or a total, in those three county and municipal boroughs, of 28,887. In Sunderland this year the figure is 16,832, or an increase of 2,057; in South Shields it is 9,917, or an increase of 966; while Jarrow and Hebburn show a slight reduction to 5,122. The total this year is thus 31,871, showing an increase in the three boroughs of just on 3,000 unemployed.
A reply which I received from the Ministry of Labour yesterday in regard to the number of unemployed in the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields, indicated that on 17th October this year there were 50,040 unemployed persons aged 18 years and over on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the administrative county of Durham. The corresponding figures for Employment Exchanges in the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields were 15,448 and 9,138 respectively, making a total of 74,626, and of that number 72,242 were rceeiving unmployment benefit. I find, on analysing those figures, that in the administrative county of Durham there were 14,196, in the county borough of Sunderland 5,051, and in the county borough of South Shields 1,809, or a total


of 21,056, who have been out of work for 12 months or more, and some of these people have been out of work for five, six, seven, and in some instances 10 years.
That is happening at a time of national prosperity, when scores of millions of pounds are being spent on armaments; and yet we have to acknowledge that, with all this money being spent in a particular direction, with all that the Government have done, the condition of Durham as a county is getting gradually worse. The Government have sought to meet the situation by transferring people out of the county, and from 1932 up to March, 1938, they have transferred 20,475 men, 8,106 women, 6,482 boys, and 6,554 girls, making a total of 41,617 persons. They are taking the best of our people out of the county, instead of bringing industries to the area, and are sending those people to other counties. Many of them arc coming to London and helping to swell the large number of people here. That is a menace to London as a city. It is not fair that this should be done. It is against the best interests of our homeland and against the best interests of the boys and girls themselves; and I hope that in any further effort the Government may make to solve the problem of the Special Areas they will try some other method than the transference of our best people. In Durham to-day, of every 10,000 of our population, we have 639 on Poor Law relief, as compared with an average for England and Wales of 256.
I come back to the report which the right hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey compiled four years ago, in which he suggested that, in the interests of Durham, in order to help the county to revive and take its place again as an industrial county, it should be given an annual subsidy of £700,000, to make the rates comparable with those of the rest of the country. In spite of that, nothing has been done to meet the needs of Durham, which as a depressed area, has had to meet commitments that ought to be met by the National Government. We have been debating to-day the question of increasing old age pensions. I have here a return showing that in Durham county we have 11,067 old age pensioners who are drawing Poor Law relief, costing the county £5,567 a week—this year it is costing £289,484. Widows and orphans and old age pensions this year

are costing Durham £74,724, and the augmenting of compensation paid to injured workmen—something that the ratepayers ought not to have to face—is costing Durham this year £20,956. That makes a total for these three items of £385,164 for this year. That is equal to a 3s. rate, and it represents 35·2 per cent. of the amount spent on ordinary outdoor relief. In 1937 we spent in Durham for Poor Law relief £962,788, and for unemployment allowances £3,613,233, making a total of £4,576,021. This year, if the unemployment allowances remain at the figure of last year, we shall spend, owing to the increase in Poor Law expenditure,. £5,232,961. We are told that prosperity has come to those Special Areas, and' yet this year we shall spend £1,619,728 for Poor Law relief and £3,613,233 for unemployment benefit. Surely, by no stretch of the imagination can any Government suggest that prosperity has come and that they are doing their best for areas that are depressed through no fault of their own.
We have voiced our protests in this House often. We have tried to bring the plight of our people before hon. Gentlemen opposite, and all we have asked has been that they will allow our people to enjoy that which is every Britisher's right—the right to live a fuller and better life. Go into our mining villages, go into our townships, and you will see depressed men who have lost hope. Go into our homes, and you will see our young women, our wives, prematurely aged, because they are fighting this hard economic fight 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year in and year out. And the Government absolutely refuse to face their responsibilities and do what they ought to do for those people, as decent Englishmen. We ask the Government to come to our aid, and do something for us. If they do not then in the near future the results, as far as they, as a Government, are concerned, will be disastrous.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government to extend the period of the Special Areas Acts and to introduce legislation dealing with industrial development in certain other areas where there is a high incidence of unemployment.


I imagine the whole House would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) upon his success in the Ballot, and upon having chosen this subject for the consideration of the House. As the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) has said, this is a matter that attracts the sympathy of all hon. Members. It is the desire of all parties in this House to do their utmost to bring succour to the unfortunate people who live in these areas. But, while one thanks the hon. Member for having provided this opportunity, I did feel surprised at the picture which he drew, and I was still more surprised when I listened to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. He said many strange things. He seemed to imagine that over here we thought that prosperity had come to the Special Areas. I have never heard anybody make such a claim. The hon Member also said that the Government has absolutely refused to face their responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course they have."] I am glad that I am not misquoting him. He said: "Do something for us!" Anybody listening to this Debate who did not know the circumstances would imagine that the Government had done nothing at all in the course of the last few years. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will let me proceed. They have occupied one hour and 40 minutes in two speeches.

Mr. George Griffiths: Not one hour and 40 minutes.

Mr. Stewart: I was induced to shorten my speech but I shall obviously not succeed if I am interrupted. Hon. Members opposite lead one to understand that unemployment in the Special Areas has done nothing but increase since this Government took office. What are the facts: I do not want to spend much time upon this, but the facts ought to be faced. There is no use denying that in the last year there has been a recession, and I have no doubt that the figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite are accurate, but is it quite fair, in presenting a general picture, to take only the figures for a certain 12 months which happen to be suitable to hon. Members?

Mr. G. Griffiths: You always take figures to suit yourself.

Mr. Stewart: Let me take the advice of the hon. Gentleman. I take figures which do suit me but which also, as it happens, suit the facts of the case. What are the facts?

Mr. Griffiths: Take the 1933 figures.

Mr. Stewart: I will take what figure you like. I take November, 1934, and I take that for the reason that it was just before the appointment of the Commissioner. In November, 1934, in the Special Area in Tyneside, there were 91,000 unemployed, and in 1937 there were 53,00o unemployed. Certainly, the number increased last winter to 59,000, but to-day it is only 55,00o. These figures show that, as a result of the efforts of this Government and of the Commissioner, unemployment in Tyneside is down by 36,000 persons in the last four years.

Mr. Griffiths: How many transfers?

Mr. Stewart: If I go from Tyneside and take all the Special Areas, including Scotland, Cumberland, South Wales and the North-East of England, the figures are equally striking. Again there has been a recession this year, but if I take, as I am entitled to do, the whole period during which the Commissioner has been working, there has been a fall of 110,000 persons on the unemployment register. That is a very considerable decrease over the whole of the Special Areas.

Mr. Griffiths: How many transfers are there in that number?

Mr. Stewart: I am prepared to face the question of transfers which the hon. Gentleman raises and I will deal with it. The fall is not entirely attributable to transfers, because the total number of insured workers in the whole of the Special Areas in 1937 was about the same as in 1935. Therefore, one is entitled to infer that in that period the insured persons actually in employment increased by no fewer than 140,000. These are facts which must be recognised by the House. They are the result of work that has been done in a great number of directions. The hon. Member quoted the vast sums of money that had already been allocated by the Commissioners. The sum of £21,000,000 has already been allocated for schemes. Is not that something? Does it suggest that the Government have been doing nothing? By all means ask for more, but do recognise what has been done and its immense assistance.
The hon. Member for Consett chided the Government for their failure to extend the system of trading estates. He said, "What a paltry effort. There are now considerably over 200 factories in operation and there are 4,000 persons employed. What a paltry figure compared with the mass of employment." I recognise the comparisons, but it is surely not for the hon. Member and his party to criticise us for not doing more for trading estates, when it was they who at the beginning opposed their creation. I remember the night when the hon. Member's colleague the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) made her views perfectly plain. I also recall that her remarks were accompanied by the cheers of hon. Members opposite. She told us in March, 1936, only two years and a half ago, that it was impossible to talk about these trading estates really developing into anything worth while in less than 30 years. She told us that she had met a first-class industrialist in Durham Or Jarrow who told her that 50 years was a more probable time. She also said:
I am a trade union official and I deal with many machine trades, and I know from my own experience that to suggest that a man can take over a ready-made shell and put in machinery to fit it is fantastic.
It is precisely that piece of fantasy that has been brought about, and hon. Members are now asking that more trading estates should be established. I would say in passing that the hon. Member in his Motion made no reference to the other side of the Commissioner's work, to which Members in all parts of the House used to refer, namely, the social side. That was the first task of the Commissioner, because it was the main demand of Parliament that he should try to improve the social conditions of the people; and that he succeeded in doing to a large extent. I think that on this occasion we should pay tribute to that action. For these reasons the picture of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seems to me unnecessarily dark; it gives an impression that is not fair and shows a lack of gratitude for which has been done, and in which hon. Members sometimes themselves have assisted. It does not really come well from hon. Members, tens of thousands of whose supporters are gaining in direct benefit from the Special Area work which has been done in recent years. That is what I have to say about the present position.
I think that hon. Members and I will find ourselves in greater agreement when we talk about what is wanted in the future. Let us make plain to the Government that we are all dissatisfied with the plight of the Special Areas now and that we all want things to be done a good deal better. [Interruption.] I would rather be here than on the side of the hon. Member. Take, first of all, the position inside the Special Areas. What is wanted there? We are agreed that the work of the Commissioner and his staff must be continued, with all the powers now associated with him. That is the first thing. Secondly, we must maintain and if possible expand the financial resources now available to assist the Commissioner in his industrial development work. At the present time there are three forms of assistance, the Nuffield Trust, the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, and Treasury loans. The Nuffield Trust funds, I understand, are running out. While I have found it necessary to make some criticisms of the letter which Lord Nuffield wrote to the Press a few days ago, I should like to pay full tribute to his work in the Special Areas and in other parts of the country. The fact is that the Nuffield Trust fund is disappearing. I understand also that the Special Areas Reconstruction Association's funds are running out. Is it intended that the Treasury loans shall be increased to take the place of those two funds?
Thirdly, with regard to the Special Areas themselves, I should like to make a plea to the Government for a more generous attitude in regard to armament work. I was a member of the deputation which waited on the Minister of Labour last week, representing the Special Areas. The leader from Cumberland told me that in that county three years ago they made a complete survey of every factory, the sort of work done, the machinery, the man-power, and sent the result of that survey to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence; but that the results had been practically negligible. Precisely the same thing has happened in Scotland. I recognise that the Clyde has had its full share of naval contracts, but with that exception we in Scotland are not getting anything like a fair share of Government work.
In the Ministry of Labour Gazette for this month there is a list of Service Department


contracts which have been given out. The Air Ministry, according to that list, placed in October 264 contracts, and of that total Scotland got seven. I do not know how other districts are faring, but I know that in that part of the country for which I have some responsibility we are not getting our share. Therefore, I must tell my hon. Friend that there is keen dissatisfaction in Scotland at this state of affairs.
What is required outside the Special Areas? The Motion seems to indicate two or three proposals. First, it suggests that the Special Areas legislation should be extended to other areas. The second proposal suggests a comprehensive scheme of economic reconstruction, in order to establish national prosperity. In the first part of the Motion I have discovered a third suggestion, in which it is said—
realising the acute distress prevailing in many districts due to lack of trade and consequent unemployment
That seems to suggest that the hon. Member who moved the Resolution feels that the Special Areas will be helped as much by a general improvement in trade as by anything else. I welcome that view, because that has been the Government view from the start. They have held from the beginning that only by increasing the volume and turnover of businesses of all kinds can you bring something like prosperity to these areas. To that end the Government have brought about trade agreements, financial assistance for industry, protection against foreign competition and so on. That has helped the Special Areas as well as the country generally. I claim the hon. Member as a convert to that policy.
With regard to the proposal for a comprehensive scheme of economic reconstruction, I did not get very much hope from the hon. Members observations. He told us that it meant national planning and a national survey, that the State should assume the over lordship of its resources, and that finance, land, manufactures, transport and power should all be taken over by the Government. That to us is Socialism, and it is something we are not prepared to accept. For that reason, principally, I move the Amendment. But when the Motion suggests that the Special Areas legislation should be extended, then I understand. That is a practical proposal. We realise its

significance. But I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether that is the best way of assisting those distressed parts of the country which are outside the Special Areas to-day. I know some of those parts, such as Lancashire and particularly Scotland. In Scotland, the Highlands, the fishing ports, and places like Dundee are greatly distressed at the present time, and they get no assistance at all.

Mr. Kirkwood: The whole of the Highlands are a distressed area.

Mr. Stewart: I said the Highlands. The distress in those parts of tile country is great. In Dundee there is now nearly 19 per cent. of unemployment, in Peterhead 23·5; in Wick 32·8; while in the whole of Durham it is only 21.8 and in Cumberland 21.5. Therefore, we can well speak of the distressed areas outside the Special Areas. Over wider districts in the midlands and the western parts of Scotland there is a general level of unemployment which not the most sanguine of us can look upon with anything other than dismay. I doubt whether those areas wish to become Special Areas. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) can tell us what Dundee thinks, but I doubt whether they wish to be classed as a Special Area. I am certain that to take all these different areas, dotted about the country, and to call them individually Special Areas, would bring about an administrative problem almost impossible to handle.
It is here that I come to the speech made by the Minister of Labour last week. It was a short reference, and he made no attempt to explain what he meant. He said:
The House will remember that these Acts include provisions for encouraging the establishment of new industrial undertakings, not only in the Special Areas themselves but also in certain areas outside. Experience has shown that some modification of the present conditions applying to the outside areas is desirable in order to make loan facilities more readily available for new undertakings, and the Government propose to introduce legislation in due course for this purpose.
On that point I put a question:
Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from the Special Areas question … would he indicate whether any other amendments to the Act are contemplated?
He replied:
The statement I have made makes it clear We propose to so continue the present


Act in the Expiring Laws Bill, and not only that, but to meet the point that has been made about the nature of certain restrictive powers under that Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1938; col. 646, Vol. 341.]
I ask my hon. Friend to explain just what that means. I do not know what it means, but I know what I would like it to mean. In my view we have passed the era of selected pockets of emergency assistance. We have reached the stage of regional endeavour. If I had my way I would abolish the Special Areas scheme, in Scotland at any rate, and declare the whole of Scotland one development area, and I would provide aid and encouragement on a regional basis. I imagine the same kind of view could be taken about the North of England as a whole, or about Wales as a whole, and I think we shall be obliged ultimately to adopt such a method.
In the case of the old age pensions scheme which we discussed earlier this afternoon, hon. Members opposite knew they could not get all they wanted, so they asked for a half measure. I am in the same position to-night. I ask for what I think is possible and practical now to bring about an improvement in the Special Areas. Let me say this at the outset. No policy will avail unless it is based on a recognition that the difficulties of the Special Areas derive from the lack of balance in their economic structure. In Scotland we have this particular difficulty, that many of our industries are built on the old nineteenth century pattern, and we have failed to secure the rapidly expanding industries of the twentieth century. There was a very significant passage in an article which appeared in the "Times" a few months ago, the writer of which had been to Scotland and had come away overwhelmed by the impression that we all get, that here is a country for at any rate the Western part of Scotland, Clydeside) which is almost wholly dependent upon two main industries. The result is that when these two main industries collapse through the fall in international trade, the whole population of that area, 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people, is placed in a state of underemployment. That dependence on one or two trades is the outstanding factor in all the Special Areas, and it is because of that that our main purpose must be to introduce new industries. In that connection I am to-night happy to be

able to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, because he more than any other man is responsible for the Government's drive for the new trading estates. I offer my right hon. Friend the warmest congratulations on the work he has done in that direction. So far as Scotland is concerned, nothing can save the country from decline except a bold diversification of her industries.
An attempt was made in 1937 to create what were called site companies, in order that the benefits of trading estates might be shared by industries outside of the Special Areas. We know that that effort is not succeeding. There is only one site company in operation, because local people are not prepared to put down the money. As a result you have not been able to assist industry by Treasury loans as you would desire to do. I want to ask my hon. Friend: Does the statement of the Minister a few days ago mean that he intends to offer financial facilities for the establishment of these site companies outside the Special Areas, or does he mean only that he intends loans to be offered to individual industrialists? Personally I hope it will be found that he means both, because I am profoundly convinced that the trading estate idea, the grouping of light industries under a central direction, the common supply of services and amenities, the credit facilities that accompany such an organization—that idea is one of the most valuable industrial ideas of this generation. Slough was a beginning, and I ask that there shall be more Sloughs in every part of the country.
There is a Royal Commission sitting now on the location of industry. I quite understand that until that Commission reports it would be foolish for the Government to set about the development of trading estates here and there in the country. That, however, is not a reason for the Minister to abandon his plans for creating trading estates; it is a reason to expedite the Report of the Royal Commission, and I hope very much he will be able to take that step. The Government deserve the greatest praise for what they have already done. But let them recognise that many of us view these Special Areas with, I will not say shame, but something approaching shame; we deplore that throughout this great country there should be areas where


there is so much unemployment and so much distress. Therefore let the Government realise that more should be done.
I will make this last plea. I have been speaking of the desire for extending the trading estates. I would press on with that for this if for no other reason. To-night the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us about the financial commitments of the Government, and next year they will be greater than ever. The burden of the armaments programme is going to be co10ssal. How is it to be met save by stimulating new trades, new productive industries? Let the Minister take the fullest courage from this Debate to-night to proceed with his new industrial estates with all speed, recognising that in that way he is doing a service to the distressed areas and a great service to the country.

9.34 P.m.

Major Oscar Guest: I beg to second the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). I think it is fair to say that the experiments which have been tried under the Special Areas Acts have had a very remarkable measure of success, considering the time they have been in operation. It is not an easy thing to move industry on a large scale, and particularly a number of light industries in a short space of time; and I do think it is encouraging that at the two estates that already exist at Team and Treforest, there are 180 factories in operation or being built, and a very large proportion of them actually in operation. Although these factories are not employing large numbers of men at present, it must be remembered that a number of them have only just commenced their operations and that a number more have only been going for a year or two. No business with a good future before it can grow at more than a certain pace. I think we may look forward to a reasonable proportion of the zoo factories which have arisen as a result of the Special Areas Act in places where there is the worst unemployment in the country growing into works of importance and giving employment to really large numbers of people. The Special Areas Act has also given us trading estates and training centres which have been started for young labour. They are a very correct and valuable contribution to a solution of this problem. The trouble

which industrialists are up against in going to districts which are not accustomed to light industries is to find labour suitable for their requirements.
Perhaps the most useful contribution I can make to the Debate on this subject is to give the experience of one who has tried to establish a light industry in one of these areas. We may have different views as to whether the effort has been a good effort, but we have to deal with industrialists whom we are trying to persuade to go to the Tyneside, South Wales and other areas. We must weigh the advantages and disadvantages as a manufacturer sees them. If he is asked to start a factory in Sunderland or South Wales or North-West Durham he has to face the difficulty of the distance from markets, the difficulty of training labour unaccustimed to his sort of work, and then he has to face the question of the housing problem for his men and more particularly for his key men. I would like to make the plea that so far as the more remote areas are concerned more attention should be given to the housing accommodation for the key men. If you are going to move an industry into the mining valleys of South Wales the men there, with the best will in the world, do not pretend to understand engineering and you have to take key men to run the machinery. The difficulty that has to be faced is in finding housing accommodation for these key men. I think the Government might help us more in our efforts to start industry in the distressed areas by providing more of the funds that are available for housing the key men.
If it were possible to erect houses under the housing schemes around a trading estate where the houses are wanted, as opposed to erecting them around the township, where the houses are not so much wanted, it would be of great assistance in the transference of labour. The only possible form of transference of labour is where you can offer houses to the man, his wife and his family, and it is the only form of transference which is likely to succeed. I wonder whether a suggestion that the Special Areas Commissioner should have more say in the housing schemes of borough councils and possibly county councils would be of assistance? From the point of view of the manufacturer who is being tempted to go to a Special Area there are undoubtedly advantages for him,


and the main advantage is the labour supply. In the larger areas labour at the present time is comparatively scarce. Labour goes to one factory and then it will move to another. That is unsatisfactory both to the employer and to the workman. In the areas where unemployment is high labour is plentiful, and what is more is anxious for work. There has been a feeling among industrialists that if they went to Newcastle or South Wales or the distressed areas in the North they would have a difficulty with their labour; that they would not be willing to work. That has not been my experience. In South Wales, at any rate, the men want work, they are willing to work and are anxious to learn.
The third inducement which has been offered by the Government to manufacturers to start business in a distressed area is to put up a factory for them. Factories are put up by the Government and rented to the manufacturer. That is a great consideration for any firm which starts with not a great deal of capital at its disposal, and further I think that this capital assistance is a weapon which the Government can use, if it is used discreetly and wisely, towards assisting young industries. There is no form of business so difficult to finance as a business which is not a very large one and which has no past record, but it does not follow that it has not therefore the germs of good business, and I think that assistance by the Government by way of a loan would be a great inducement to manufacturers to go to these areas. A great deal more could be done if there was more publicity in this matter. If the various trading estates published a booklet which they could send round to the manufaceurers, and if there was a certain amount of publicity in the newspapers as to the labour available, the railway facilities and factory sites, with illustrations of the factories which have been built, it would have great weight in inducing new industries to try these areas where we are so anxious they should go. In the same way some form of register of labour conditions in areas would be valuable. One of the first things an industrialist thinks of is whether he can get a plentiful supply of labour. I do not think you can bring home too much to the man who desires to start an industry the advantages of a large, willing and plentiful labour supply.
Let me say one word on the question of the location of industry. This is a subject which will have to be tackled, and I am very glad that the Government have set up a Commission to report on the subject. There are two ways of looking at it. You can either tell industry where it has to go or you may tell industry the places which are full up and where you do not wish them to go. Perhaps that may be the wiser line to take. But we have to face some form of restriction on these everlastingly growing towns. It is not only a question of the danger in war and the difficulty of food supplies, but there is also a question of health. I noticed myself that the difference in health of labour in South Wales and London was most marked indeed. I think the growth of these towns beyond a certain limit should be controlled if we can devise a wise way of doing so.
Hon. Members opposite have raised the question of including other areas under the Special Areas scheme. I think that here we ought to go rather carefully and warily. After all, the number of new industries which there are to share round is not unlimited. Surely, it is better to concentrate on certain larger centres of unemployment than to dissipate our energies by going to too many places at the same time. It may be that in time we shall be able to de-schedule certain areas which are now Special Areas, and I think that time may not be so far distant. Possibly, in future, some datum line can be formed, and when a district rises about the average unemployment figure of the country it can be taken out of the Special Areas class and some other district be put in.
I feel that on the question of extending these benefits to further districts we ought to bear in mind the fact that new industries are not unlimited in number. We cannot press a button and say we will have more industries in a certain place; they have to grow naturally, and, what is more, they have to carry on. However, I feel that a great start has been made through the Special Areas Acts. I welcome very much their extension, as do hon. Members opposite, and I believe that with publicity, which is growing daily, as to the possibilities of work in those areas and the benefits which accrue to those who go there, we shall see a steadily increasing stream of manufacturers


going to those parts. Moreover, I think that a proportion of the factories that have gone there will increase in size and become large factories in the future.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) told us that the Government deserve the greatest praise for what has been done under the Special Areas Acts, and it is true, of course, that the Government in general, and the Minister of Labour in particular, are always claiming credit for their Special Areas legislation. It is indisputable that they have, in the last four years, passed three Acts to deal with the Special Areas, but no hon. Member who has sat in the House during the last two Parliaments supposes for a moment that the Government did so willingly or readily. The 1934 Act was introduced only because of the prolonged and persistent pressure which came from all quarters of the House. I remember very well those Debates, when the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) compared Ministers on the Front Bench opposite to a lot of disused slag heaps. It always seems to me that the Special Areas Acts, imperfect though they be, are really the achievements of back-benchers, for it is the back-benchers in all parts of the House who succeeded in making the Government act. I shall support the Motion because it refers to the necessity for having the Act
substantially amended and made applicable to all distressed areas.
That reference contains one fact which many of us have been trying for months and years to impress upon the consciousness of His Majesty's Government, and that is that there are many areas to-day which are far harder hit in the matter of unemployment than some of the scheduled Special Areas. The hon. Member for East Fife quoted some cases. I was looking up the percentages to-night in the local register of unemployed. I see that in some Scottish Special Areas—I do not say in all—but in some—the unemployment figure is down to below 15 per cent. I think that when the Act began, the general level was about 3o per cent. In one or two cases it is below 15 per cent.—in West Lothian it is down to 13·4 per cent., and in West Calder it is down to 11.1 per cent., and there are other examples. Let hon. Members compare

those with some of the places which are outside the scheduled areas. There is Glasgow, with 17·2 per cent., there is my own constituency, Dundee, with 18·9 per cent., and, of course, if one takes the Highland counties, all of them show percentages which are very much higher still. For instance, in Caithness and Sutherland the figure is 31·5 per cent., in Ross and Cromarty it is 31·8 per cent., and in Argyllshire it is 19·5 per cent. That is true not only of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) pointed out last week that it is true of Wales. One can find such areas in England. I was surprised to find that even in the County of Cornwall, in Penzance, there is an unemployment figure of 20·9; in St. Ives, 16·4 per cent, and in Redruth is 34·9 per cent.
All these areas receive no kind of benefit from the Government's Special Areas legislation, and in fact, it happens that the facilities which have been given to the scheduled Special Areas are acting to the detriment of other areas a short distance away. We have in the West of Scotland the Hillingdon Estate. I do not intend to cricise that estate, because as far as it goes it is an admirable venture. Certainly, it is admirable from the point of view of those who live in that neighbourhood. But in my constituency we have a higher percentage of unemployment than many of those areas in the West of Scotland which are affected by the Hillingdon Estate, and we have good reason to believe that within the last year enterprises that would have been set up in Dundee and so helped to relieve our unemployment have been drawn away to that estate. To some extent, wherever there is a trading estate, it is likely to act as a private pool and to draw within it a good deal of new enterprise. That necessarily must have been contemplated from the first, and it must be to a certain extent at the expense of other areas, but I do not think it was ever contemplated, when the House passed the original Act in 1934, that that process would go on at the expense of many other areas which are even harder hit than the scheduled areas.
This situation was not unforeseen. There were many of us, at the end of 1934, who pointed out that it was bound to arise. At that time we were prevented from moving Amendments by the way in which the Money Resolution was drawn—


the Government do not seem to have mended their ways very much since then —but we pointed out that this was something which was almost bound to happen. At that time, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that we need not worry because this was only an experiment, and an experiment which might in due course be extended. That was said not only by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but the hon. Gentleman who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, only a week or two before, in a Debate which followed the return of the four Special Commissioners, said:
Our general policy is directed towards improving the situation there"—
that is, in the Special Areas—
and we certainly hope that, as a result of the experiments that will be carried on with this money in the depressed areas, we shall learn valuable lessons which we shall he able, as soon as the results of the experiments are available, to adapt, extend and apply to any town or area with heavy unemployment"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1934; col. 2292, Vol. 293.]
That was what was contemplated at that time, and that was over four years ago. In spite of the lapse of four years and all the experiments and adaptations and all the experience which the Government must have gained, the Shedule remains unaltered and there is no idea of extending it. Many representations have been made upon this matter. Representations have come from such bodies as the Scottish Economic Advisory Committee, but those representations have been consistently ignored.
I know it will be said by the Minister that we have Section 5 of the 1927 Act, and that it provides certain loan facilities for areas outside the Schedule. That is true, but I ask the House to remember what Section 5 provides. It lays down that in certain cases, where certain conditions are fulfilled, the Treasury may advance money either by way of subscription to the share capital of a site company, or by way of loan to the site company in the proportion of one-third of the paid-up capital of the company. But in any case it is only an advance which, in one way or another, has to be repaid. The other form of assistance is that when the site company has been set up, some advance can be made to the

enterprises which are started under the auspices of the site company. I am not saying that, in the ordinary way, those inducements would not be worth something, but they are worth little when one has to compare them with the advantages given to the trading estates in the Special Areas. That is the difficulty. You only get a loan or an advance, which has to be repaid, where you have factories on the trading estate. They get a great deal more than that. They can get their rates and taxes free. They can get their factories rent free for the first five years. It is impossible for any site company, set up under Section 5 of the 1927 Act, to compete with those advantages given under Section 3 to concerns in the areas set out in the schedule.

Mr. David Adams: May I point out to the hon. Member, that I observed that the great complaint at the time, with regard to the Team Valley Trading Estate was that the Commissioner would not make those concessions, although asked to do so?

Mr. Foot: I am referring now to the experience which we have had in Scotland. We have considered the operation of Section 5, but we are always up against this difficulty, that if we ask for assistance for a site company, in some area which is outside the scheduled Special Areas, we are asked, "What is the use of advancing money, since we cannot compete with the advantages given under Section 3 to places within the scheduled areas?" That may not apply to the North-East coast but that has been our experience in Scotland. In order to get advances under Section 5 it is necessary to raise a considerable sum in the area concerned. Where you have an area which is suffering, as it must suffer if it is to come under Section 5, from prolonged and heavy unemployment, where it is dependent upon a few industries no longer able to maintain the people in the area, it is extremely difficult for the people living there to raise a sufficient sum. Certainly they will be reluctant to advance their money when they know that they have to compete against the advantages which are given in the Special Areas.
I have welcomed for what it is worth the decision to continue the Special Areas, though I think it is a pity that that decision was left so late. There was no reason


why it should not have been made a great deal earlier in the present year. But it appears to me that the method adopted by the Government is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and I wish to ask this question. The hon. Member for East Fife referred to a statement made by the Minister of Labour a day or two ago. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
Experience has shown that some modification of the present conditions applying to the outside areas is desirable in order to make loan facilities more readily available for new undertakings.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1938; col. 646, Vol. 341.]
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us about those loan facilities. Are they to be dependent on the setting up of site companies, as is now necessary, or are those facilities to apply to enterprises in those areas which we are now considering, without the necessity of forming site companies? If that were so, it would be a considerable advantage, but I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House that we cannot long continue this indefensible anomaly of giving benefits to the Special Areas—which none of us would deny to those areas—while denying them to other areas which are suffering very much more from depression and unemployment.

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): This is, in a sense, the second day of a discussion on the distressed areas. I think it is a very good thing that this House, at a time when so much attention is directed to European affairs and absorbed by Continental events, should find time to discuss matters of this kind which affect many millions of our fellow citizens for whom we are responsible and over whose destinies we exercise a considerable measure of personal control. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) moved this Motion in a friendly and not unhelpful fashion, and, if I may say so, speaking as a fellow member of the Parliamentary Council of St. Margaret's, Westminster, in a Christian fashion which makes my task less difficult than it might otherwise have been. The Debate is to be wound up by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), whom I would like to congratulate upon his translation to the front Opposition Bench. Though we realise that this will make our task

in the future more difficult because of the dialectical skill which the hon. Member will bring to controversies in this House, those of us who value the cut and thrust of debate and the proper examination of public issues, are delighted that he will in future speak from the Front Bench of his own party.
One interesting fact has emerged from this discussion, and that is the recognition by the Opposition of the fact that the problem of employment in the distressed areas is inextricably interwoven with the problem of general trade revival. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) in a most excellent contribution to this discussion said that he realised that it was now and had been the policy of the Government to stimulate by every means in its power the recovery of lost markets and the winning of fresh markets oversea and at home. It may not be entirely without interest to remind the House that in the 12 months ended in June of this year exports from this country were nearly £155,000,000 greater than they were in 1932, the first full year after the present National Government took office and that the increase in respect of the total exports to the Ottawa Dominions and to those foreign countries with which we have made trade agreements, amounted to some £119,000,000 Speaking as one who believes that in the community of our own Empire lies our eventual salvation, I would say that it must not pass without comment that the British countries in the British Empire to-day are immense purchasers of those manufactured goods which come from the special and other areas in this country and provide active employment for hundreds of thousands of our people. If in the first 10 months of this year our exports to the British Empire of iron and steel are 39 per cent. higher than they were in the first 10 months of 1932, and if our exports to the Empire of machinery already this year equal £26,000,000 in value, then I feel sure that in the distressed areas it will be realised that it was not altogether without significance that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain began his great Imperial crusade by linking Imperial preference and social reform at home as twin aspects of the same policy.
Last night, some hon. Members opposite said that the Special Areas Acts


were of very little practical value, and a number of other Members argued that the Acts were so good that they ought to be extended to cover other areas. Tonight we have heard a plea put forth that these Acts should be extended to cover all areas of heavy unemployment. The "Daily Herald," a few weeks ago, when no one outside Government circles was sure of what was going to happen to this legislation, said it would be a bad business if the Special Areas Acts were scrapped. It seems to me a far cry from those days, four years ago, when this legislation was first introduced, and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) called the Special Areas Act "make-belief nonsense" and "shadow boxing," and the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson), speaking in the same Debate, claimed that the Bill was not intended to do more than fill in the gap between that time and the time when Part 2 of the Unemployment Act was coming into operation. I am glad, not because of the opportunity to make political capital, but because, thanks to the new employment that has gone to those areas, those prophecies have not been justified.
I should like to direct attention to the question of employment in these areas and the really practical results which have been achieved as a result of this legislation. The speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Major Guest) to-night interested me very much indeed, in view of the fact that his practical efforts in the last few months to make a material contribution to the position in an area of South Wales long associated with his family have won him the regard of all who know him and value his interest in that district. It is not true to say, as the hon. Member for Consett said earlier in the Debate, that very little direct contribution had been made to the unemployment figures in the Special Areas. He quoted figures which undoubtedly showed that in the course of the last few months there had been a regrettable tendency in many areas in that part of the world for the unemployment figures to rise. But when judging the work of the Special Areas Commissioners as a whole, it is surely fair to bear in mind the situation which they found when they were first appointed, and compare it with the position to-day.
In June, 1935, the unemployment among insured persons in those Special Areas was 391,000, but in June last year it had dropped to 252,000, showing a drop in the course of two years of a little under 140,000. It has been argued that this decline in unemployment is largely, and to-night the hon. Member for Consett said almost exclusively, the result of official and unofficial transference, but if he will examine the number of insured workers in that area, he will find that in the years 1936 and 1937 they recovered, after a temporary lapse, to almost the exact figure of 1935, and that proves that there were in fact in that period of two years 140,000 more insured people working in those distressed areas than there was before the Commissioner started his operations. Since June, 1937, as we all know, those figures have unhappily fluctuated, and last month, October, 1938—and I have no desire to hide anything from the House—the unemployment there had risen from 252,000 in June of last year to 280,000. It is difficult to state to the House the effects, in terms of employment, of this rise, because, as hon. Members know, the local results of the count of the insured population for 1938 are not yet available, but assuming that there has been no substantial change in the number of insured workers since 1937, we may perhaps rightly infer that the numbers in employment have fallen by about 28,000 since that date. I recognise the fact and deplore it, but even so there are at this moment well over 100,000 people in employment in those Special Areas more than there were three years ago. This is no urge to complacency or self-satisfaction; it is rather an incentive to greater effort, because it shows what can be done by deliberately weighting the scales in favour of those areas which, through prolonged unemployment, are in exceptionally adverse conditions.
As there are so many hon. Members opposite, and indeed on this side also, who are concerned in the heavy industries of this country, it may be of some interest if I give one or two figures relating to coalmining, iron and steel, and shipbuilding, because I must confess that when I first read these figures they surprised me very much indeed. In 1935, the first full year after the Commissioners started operations, those three heavy industries, with which so much of our


national greatness is bound up, accounted for over 40 per cent. of all the unemployment in the Special Areas, but though their contribution to that heavy and tragic total was great, their contribution to recovery in the two years that have followed has been even greater. In the two succeeding years the improvement in unemployment in the Special Areas has been accounted for to the extent of 60 per cent. by those three heavy industries. To-day unemployment in coalmining and shipbuilding is about one-half of what it was three years ago. I must in fairness add that, unhappily, the third partner in those three industries, iron and steel, shows a rise of 15 per cent. in the last two years.
I had intended to develop at some length the situation on Tyneside, but I have not time to do that, because I have promised the hon. Member opposite to leave him plenty of time to conclude this Debate. I feel, however, in fairness to those who have been trying to bring practical help to the districts of Durham and Tyneside, that some answer should be made to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) when he referred to the unemployment figures in certain areas of Durham and Tyneside in 1937 and to-day, and gave the impression, I imagine unintentionally, that there had been no improvement despite the efforts of the Commissioner. In the Newcastle area, in the period since the Commissioner was first appointed, unemployment has fallen from 25 to 13 per cent., in South Shields from 42 to 31 per cent., in Gateshead from 44 to 29 per cent., in Wallsend from 36 to 13 per cent., and even in Jarrow and Hebburn in the last two years from 35 to 26 per cent. These figures, remarkable and encouraging though they are, provide no full picture unless at the same time we have in view, what is undoubtedly true and what is somewhat of a surprise to many people, that is the change in the character of unemployment in these and other districts in the course of the last year or more. Taking the Tyneside district again there has been a small increase in unemployment in the course of the last year but the number unemployed for one year or more has fallen in the course of last year by 6,000. What is true of that district is true of others.
I have personally seen something of the problem of the older unemployed, of the man who has been out of work for a long time and who feels that even if new processes come to his district he may not be in a position to avail himself of the opportunities of work. I have seen enough of that problem to realise that we have a very real problem in the older unemployed which any and every Government must try to solve. When I give the figures which I am about to give I do not want it to be suggested that by quoting these figures a complete answer has been given to the problem. For a fair comparison we should bear in mind that in September 1933, when we had 2,000,000 people out of work, 46 per cent. of claimants and applicants unemployed had been out of work for three months or more. When we took the count on i2th September this year, only 37 per cent, had been out for three months or more. In effect, there is a steady inroad into the numbers of those who have been out of work a long time, which may cause certain people to revise their idea as to the hopelessness of people who have been out of work for a considerable period.
The hon. Member who proposed the Motion asked the House to give an assent to such an extension of the machinery of the Special Areas Act that all areas of heavy unemployment should come within its beneficent sway. He ought to remember the circumstances in which the Special Areas legislation was first brought before the House. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) had his own explanation, but I have, not only at Oxford, but in the United States and even in this House, on so many occasions had cause to scrutinise his arguments with a view to discovering their shallowness, if I may say so, that I am not unduly impressed by his explanation.
The history of this period ought to be remembered by the House. In 1934 a general improvement had set in all over the country, but there were areas where that improvement was not making itself felt despite the general recovery elsewhere. These were areas which had suffered for a long time and did not enjoy that resiliency and ability to recover that other areas had. In these areas, local authorities had had their resources depleted,


and certain essential services were in danger. Assistance to those areas was necessary if they were to get back into the stream of the nations industrial life. So the social and economic powers of the Special Areas Commissioners came into being. This explains why certain areas were selected and why certain geographical boundaries were drawn. That does not mean that at that date (as even now in many districts) there was not a very real problem outside the Special Areas, but to try and apply the machinery which has been effective over a relatively small field over too wide a field in a country where the number of light industries is obviously limited, would be so to dissipate our resources as to help no one and to impair the work on which we are now engaged. As to the other areas outside the Special Areas, while a Royal Commission is sitting on the location of industry it would be very inopportune to re-draw the geographical boundaries of the Special Areas Act. It would obviously be unwise even to consider re-defining them at the moment, but this does not mean that the Government are indifferent to the welfare of those areas which are outside the Special Areas.
As many hon. Members have reminded the House, my right hon. Friend only a week ago announced here the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date to provide easier loan facilities in areas of heavy unemployment. A little later I intend to deal in some detail with the observations made by the hon. Member for East Fife and the hon. Member for Dundee, and in so far as they referred to the new proposals I hope they will wait until then. As the House knows, we have had for some time machinery whereby site companies can be set up, but, with the exception of Lancashire, the circumstances have been such that difficulty has been experienced in raising the quota of private capital necessary for site companies under Section 5 of the Act. These new proposals for loan facilities ought, I think, to reassure both those hon. Members, and others who are concerned about them, that facilities will in future be more readily available to new undertakings to be established in areas outside the Special Areas than they have been hitherto.
At this late hour I will not detail to the House, because it was partly done last night, the manner in which the money of

the Special Commissioner has been spent, but I ought to remind the House that a great part of the sums to which he is now committed represent future expenditure, the full benefit of which has not yet reached these areas, but which will be of permanent value to them and immensely increase their local equipment.
One or two references have been made to trading estates, and the hon. Member for Consett, who first referred to them, did so less ungenerously, I think, than a great many other Members who have joined in the very natural plea for industry to go to their areas, but now seem to delight in discovering any flaw they can in the working of the trading estates in their own particular districts. The object of trading estates was to broaden the basis of industry in these areas by introducing new types of industry. We cannot, as the hon. Member for Consett suggested, cover the whole country, because of the obvious limitations upon the number of suitable industries, but one or two results have been achieved which ought to be recorded. We are on the way to break, if we have not already broken, the prejudice in the minds of many industrialists that these areas, are only suited for those industries which have long been established there. Real progress has been made, and if suggestions are made that only juvenile or female labour is now employed I think some scrutiny of the history of the Slough Trading Estate would be worth while. In the 12 years between 1924 and 1936 the numbers employed at Slough in the light industries increased from 6,000 to nearly 20,000, and of that 14,000 increase 8,000 were adult men. It may well be that a history similar to that may be enjoyed by the trading estates elsewhere, and even if that be not so the women and children employed in the Team Valley Estate and elsewhere are spending money every week at the shops of the hard-hit small tradespeople, money which is just as valuable from the point of view of the tradespeople as if earned by other people; and if light industries are coming to this country, as we all hope, from abroad, it is desirable that they should go to districts like Durham rather than increase the number of industries in the immediate environment of London.
One reference was made by the hon. Member for Consett to what he called, I


believe, the meagre help accorded by the Team Valley Trading Company to industries on that estate. We have always envisaged the prospect that if industries could be attracted to that estate by the natural advantages of the site they should be so attracted and that other inducements should not be necessary. There is nothing, I think—indeed, the contrary is suggested—to give the impression that something is wrong with the estate when people go there without inducements. The power to give inducements is a power to hold in reserve, but it has been used in a number of cases in the Team Valley, and in a greater number at Treforest. The really satisfactory feature of this development, however, has been the number of industries that have gone to the trading estates without any financial inducement to do so. That, I think, argues a feeling of permanence and security greater than the hon. Member has suggested.
Various observations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife in his most helpful speech. He referred to Lord Nuffield's Trust. I am sure that it is not necessary at this stage in the country's appreciation of Lord Nuffield's generosity to thank him once more for what he has done, but the suggestion that the Government should put money into this fund if and when it is exhausted overlooks the fact that as this fund has subscribed to the share capital of undertakings, executive control of the undertakings is involved, and that, from the point of view of this Government, and, I venture to think, of most Governments that may succeed it—whatever theorists may say to the contrary—would be regarded as a distinctly unwelcome Government activity.
In regard to the orders for rearmament in Scotland, I will certainly bear in mind all that the hon. Member said. Some £124,000,000 has been expended in recent years in this direction in distressed areas and some preference has been given to Scotland by way of Government contracts. The Clyde has been drawing some part of that sum. So far as there is substance in anything that the hon. Member has said in regard to other areas, no doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will bear it in mind, as much as we shall at the Ministry of Labour.
The hon. Member also made reference to the new loan provisions. This raises questions, which. were also raised by the junior Member for Dundee, as to the effect on Section 5 of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act of the new loan proposals, which are supplementary to the existing legislation. Any power in the Special Areas (Amendment) Act to help site companies will remain unaltered and unhampered by any new legislation which may be laid before the House. In regard to the funds of what is colloquially called S.A.R.A., the future activity of that association is restricted to the balance of the money originally put on one side, and such amount as may be recovered from loans already made. I would remind the hon. Member, however, that this Special Areas Reconstruction Association was formed to deal with small industries in the Special Areas, and although I believe the general impression has been created that the new loan facilities are to deal only with areas outside the Special Areas, there is nothing to that effect in the Government proposals which will be brought forward. The new loan facilities will be available for new industrial undertakings in the Special Areas on the same basis as outside.
I think that those replies deal with the various points which have been made. I will ask the House to accept the Amendment that has been moved from the Government Benches because I believe that along the lines of the proposals which have been made in the two speeches which we have just heard, and which represented the attitude of the Government, opportunities for further help for those areas will be provided. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring said that external effort was necessary; external effort has been provided of an unorthodox kind which would have appeared impossible a few years ago. Efforts have been made in favour of these areas, and the effect, not only on their industrial story but on their social history—their hospitals and public services—is quite remarkable. The new power with which we shall soon be equipped, to help areas to solve unemployment, will, we hope, have results equally satisfactory. I recognise, as must every hon. Member in this House, that we still have the problem of unemployment—a real problem. It is a tragic irony that the passing of the recent international crisis meant for many men who


had been called back to work a return to unemployment.
Although some people may be becoming complacent from having lived on public assistance, the vast majority of the people now out of work desperately desire work, I am convinced—manual work. It has been said that every man, rich or poor, should, once in his life, be a manual labourer, in order that he might learn what manual labour is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] That was said by Herr Hitler, and I hope that the hon. Member opposite who said "Hear, hear" will not now withdraw his applause. I believe that many people in this country want to be manual labourers, but they cannot be manual labourers because the work is not available. They look to this House to find a means, so far as human ingenuity can provide, by which involuntary unemployment shall be brought to an end.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I, first of all, thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his very kind references to myself? I listened very carefully to his speech, as I have listened to the speeches of his right hon. Friend the Minister in recent days, the last occasion being at some time round about two o'clock this morning, and I have noticed a growing tendency on the opposite side of the House, when dealing with the problem of the Special and distressed areas, to attempt to overwhelm the House with a mass of figures. Before I came to this House, my working life was spent in the mining industry, and my experience in that industry has, I believe and hope, made me impervious to masses of figures. For many years I was accustomed to sit at the table opposite representatives of the coalowners, and I was then, and still am, constantly puzzled by the system which was devised many years ago in the mining industry for ascertaining the results of the industry, and which always shows losses when it comes to computing wages and profits when it comes to making up balance sheets. An experience of that kind makes one sceptical about some of the figures that we see used in connection with these matters. I hope that, when we come to vote on this Motion, we shall remember the human beings that are behind all these figures.
I should like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the

Mover and Seconder of the Motion on the speeches that they made. We have brought forward this Motion deliberately at the present time, because, for the first time since 1934, the House of Commons has to make up its mind, first, whether the efforts we are now making are sufficient to solve the problem of the Special Areas; secondly, whether there are now in this country other areas, some of them equally distressed and some even more distressed than those areas which are called Special Areas; and, thirdly, if the present legislation is inadequate, what steps should be taken by this House to provide adequate measures for dealing with this, the nation's gravest social and economic problem. The Motion, therefore, is framed from these points of view. In it we make three propositions, to which I want to devote myself.
The first is that the Special Areas Act as it at present exists is inadequate to deal with this problem, and, therefore, must be substantially amended. The second proposition is that there are areas outside the Special Areas which, we are all now agreed, need assistance if they are to recover their prosperity. I think it is now agreed on all sides, and by the Government, who conceded the point in 1937 when they brought in their amending Bill, that those outside areas need assistance from the State, and therefore we have to consider in what way we shall provide assistance for those other distressed areas which are not scheduled as Special Areas. We propose that those areas shall be brought within the ambit of the Special Areas Act, and that there shall be one effort and one machine to deal with the same problem, and not two efforts and two machines to deal with what is an identical problem. In the third place, we call for a comprehensive effort to plan our economic life—to plan the economy of this nation so as to bring to an end the scandal of a nation which calls itself great and leaves nearly 2,000,000 people without a niche in its economic life.
With regard, first, to the question whether the present Act is adequate to meet the problem, I think we ought to bear in mind what the problem of the Special Areas is. These Special Areas, and the distressed areas which are in the same position though outside the Special Areas, are the old industrial areas of this


country. They are areas with centuries of industrial effort and activity behind them. They are the areas that have made this Great Britain of ours the workshop of the world. This problem arises because of the distress in those areas, and the decline in their trade, for reasons over which they have absolutely no control—the decline in the great industries: coal-mining, the textile industries, shipbuilding and ship repairing, the steel industry, the industries that are located around the coalfields, the industries that grew up in the industrial revolution of the last century, the industries of the old industrial areas-South Wales, Northumberland, Durham, the Clyde, Lancashire, Yorkshire. May I ask the House to remember the magnitude of the problem? May I give just this single figure? In the industries I have mentioned, the basic industries of this country, there has been a reduction in the insured population of 774,000 between 1923 and 1938. The coal-mining, textiles, shipbuilding and ship repairing, and steel industries provided employment and a living in 1938 for 774,000 fewer persons than they did in 1923.
That is the problem; and when we use figures here, when we talk about trading estates, when we talk about the efforts that have been made, we ought to measure all those efforts by that. If you look at the problem in that way, you see the enormous problem that we have to face: the problem of this enormous reduction of employment in those basic industries; and you see that what has been done in the last four years, and up to the present moment, is utterly inadequate. Therefore, it is not enough for this House merely to continue this Special Areas Act. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment made what the Parliamentary Secretary described as a very interesting speech. It was, indeed, very interesting. The Amendment begins by giving a hearty welcome to the Government's decision to continue the Special Areas Act. The hon. Member's speech began in the same way; and then he went on to prove that the net result of those efforts for the area which he represents was negligible. While we do not want to minimise what is being done, we who live in those areas, who have lived with this problem and who live with

it every day, do not merely think of it when we have a discussion in this House; and we have to measure it in the way I have said. Perhaps my hon. Friends who sit behind me will realise that if I use figures with reference to South Wales it is not because I think the position is worse there than anywhere else, but because I know South Wales best.
Reference was made by the Minister of Labour last night, and again by the Parliamentary Secretary to-night, to the improvement in the Special Areas. Figures were used by the Minister last night, and, the Parliamentary Secretary to-night used figures which were very similar. The Minister said last night that unemployment in the Special Areas in 1935 stood at 391,000 and that: it had been reduced to 271,000 in October of this year—a reduction of 120,000. The hon. Gentleman a moment ago used the figure for 1937. He gave a round figure of about 100,000. I asked the Minister of Labour last night, as I am now going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, how much of that reduction has been due to increased employment and how much to transference? For some reason or other the Government have been very reluctant to give us a reply. I was interested to find that the Ministry themselves provide a reply in the "Ministry of Labour Gezette." They are very interesting figures. They say, referring to transference, that of 450,037 whose employment tickets were originally issued in the Wales Division, 85,416, nearly 16 per cent., exchanged their tickets in some other Division in July, 1937. Those are the Ministry's own figures. These are figures of transference. They are men who originally worked in Wales whose employment tickets were exchanges in 1937. Eighty-five thousand have left Wales and have sought employment somewhere else.
In the same copy of the paper I find the figures referring to the North of England. Of the 631,00o tickets of men between 16 and 64 that were originally issued in the Northern Division, 81,910 were, in July, 1937, exchanged in other Divisions. If you put those two figures together, how can the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary say that unemployment has been reduced by 119,000. These figures indicate that 167,000 men have been transferred from


those Special Areas, and, I believe, account for the reduction.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me. Of course there must always be an interchange of labour between one district and another. That is obvious, and without that no industrial future is possible. I did say in my remarks—and I adhere to what I have said—that the number of insured workers showed a temporary drop in 1935 and came back in 1936–37 to roughly the figure of 1934, showing that there were as many people at work in those districts as before, with the addition of the fresh people in employment that I quoted.

Mr. Griffiths: I produce these figures to prove that the Government have not reduced unemployment. Suppose these men had not been transferred—why should they be transferred?—unemployment to-day would be at alarming rates in all these districts. The figures are conclusive that the reduction in these areas is infinitely due more to transference than to employment. I will give other figures to prove the same thing. Take the coal-mining industry, and again I refer to South Wales, and will quote the figures which were given in an informative speech by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) in this House a week or two ago. The coal mines of South Wales, our basic industry, produced 37,000,000 tons of coal in 1931, giving employment to 158,000 men, and in 1937 we reached the same level. Once more we produced 37,000,000 tons of coal but with 23,000 fewer men than produced it in 1931. Relate the efforts of the Ministry of Labour to that. We know perfectly well that a period of intense depression in any industry is a period of intense mechanisation, and in that industry mechanisation has been proceeding apace. The machine in these years has displaced in South Wales 23,000 men. Compared with the efforts of the Special Areas Commissioners of the Minister of Labour they are puny.
There is one industry which has been established in Wales, to which I would refer. One of the claims made by the Commissioner and the Minister of Labour is that, through their efforts, financial and moral South Wales has become the home of an enormous new strip mill. They speak of that as something for which they deserve great credit. We have had very

glowing accounts and wonderful speeches made about the way in which the Government and the Commissioner have used their efforts to establish this great £10,000,000 plant. I would, however, ask them to realise what it means. It will provide employment, we are told, for 3,000 workmen, in a town which needs work very badly, Ebbw Vale, but I have been at pains to find out what are the possible repercussions upon the older industries. The other day, at a deputation which the Parliamentary Secretary attended, there was present a representative of the tinplate trade of South Wales, a man who is competent to speak for that industry, and he told the Minister that he estimated that the new strip mill would displace 9,000 men in South Wales. That is what they claim as one of their great achievements. They provide a mill which will find employment for 3,000 in East Wales and put 9,000 men out of employment in West Wales. Something very much better will have to be done before we on this side of the House will be satisfied.
Let me say a few words about other areas. There is Lancashire, whose tale of woe we have heard. Lancashire is not a Special Area, but is outside, yet there are 27 Exchanges in that county where over 20 per cent. of the insured population are unemployed. Lancashire is asking what the Government are going to do for them. We in our Resolution asked for the cardinal thing that all of us who have practical experience of this problem believe to be necessary. We ask that all these areas should be brought together under one comprehensive plan. Let me turn once more to Wales. There are only two counties in Wales which are in the Special Areas, Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire. One township in Breconshire and one place in Pembroke, Pembroke Dock, are included in the Special Areas, for whom nothing has been done. Excluding these two counties of Wales, out of the 13 counties there are 11 which are not in the Special Areas, yet in eight out of the II the unemployment rate is over 20 per cent. In some of them it is higher. In Anglesey the rate of unemployment is 37 per cent.
We are to have new legislation. On Monday we are to discuss, in a form which we do not like, because it restricts us, the continuation of the Special Areas legislation


The problem that we have to decide is what are we to do with the distressed areas. Everyone agrees that something must be done. We say they ought all to be included in the Special Areas. The Government disagree. There are areas in South Wales outside the Special Areas, that are distressed, and they will come under the terms of the new legislation. Therefore, if the Government persist in their determination not to extend the Special Areas but to make other provision for other areas, you will have two areas in South Wales, a Special Area and a certified area, competing with one another, seeking to attract industries, and one able to offer better terms than the other. The consequence will be that all the industries that will be attracted will go to the area which will give the best terms.
I should have thought that the Ministry of Labour and the Government would have learnt from the lesson of 1937. In that year we faced up to this problem, and the Minister of Labour brought before us a scheme for the setting up of site companies which were to attract new industries, and they were to be the instrument which was to rehabilitate the areas outside the Special Areas. What has happened? One site company has been formed for Lancashire—just one. That site company built a single factory. It has not got a single job. It has done nothing. I have gone into this problem very carefully and the difficulties of trying to establish a site company are so great that the measure cannot be worked. These areas are crying for help—Lancashire, West Wales, North Wales, portions of Yorkshire, East Fife, areas which are outside the Special Areas. If the Government do not propose to do something for them let them not hold out to them false hopes.
We do not want certified areas and Special Areas; we want one comprehensive measure to bring all these areas, whose economic life has been broken, within one scheme. We urge that for the fundamental reason that we believe that this problem is never going to be solved until we have measures for reconstructing the economic life of the nation. We on this side of the House believe that this problem must primarily be solved by the State taking power into its hands to determine the location of industry. We

take our stand on that. Let me say, in passing, that we think it is unjust and unfair to the men and women in those areas to bring in this legislation piecemeal. The Government should have urged the Royal Commission on the Location of Industry to report before now, or else they should hold their hand until that report comes out. We look forward to the report of that Commission because we ourselves are thoroughly convinced that we shall not solve the problem of these distressed areas until the State takes all power into its hands for the location of industry. Why not? Who can argue against it? Is there any industry in the country which does not ask for help? I put this proposition to the House. If the nation is good enough to help industry the nation is good enough to determine where industry shall be located. The national interest should be first. We believe that the State should say where industry shall be located. New industries are being built—in London. The problem of the Special Areas is that they have to go elsewhere for work; they cannot get it at home. The State, we say, should take power to determine' where industries shall be located. We are convinced that only in this way can any real solution of this problem come.
We have heard a great deal about trading estates. I desire to make one suggestion for the consideration of the Government. I can see the advantages of bringing together a number of industries in the Team Valley and in Treforest, but I want to urge this one consideration upon the Government. I am certain that they are doing a wise thing in South Wales and in Durham, but are they doing a wise thing in bringing all the new industries into one narrow area? You are building new towns. I have seen the Team Valley Estate from the train. You will have a new town there in 10 years' time, and old townships in West Durham will go down. In Treforest you are building a new township and Aberdare and Merthyr will die. If we are to have new industries need we have 4o or 100 new industries gathered together in the same place? Slough has been held up as an example, but did not Slough cause some perturbations the other day when we were faced with a crisis, with 40 or 50 factories gathered together in one spot? I am speaking for a widely growing opinion


in South Wales when I say that to concentrate all these new industries in one trading estate is not good for the area or for the nation. We have heard a great deal about national effort in the last week or two. This is a call for a great national effort. For years our people have been pleading with the Government to do things and I hope the time will come when they will cease to plead in vain but

will compel the Government to act and rehabilitate these areas which are worth saving.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 160.

Division No. 9.]
AYES.
[11. 1 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G. 


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, J. H. (Whilechapel)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A. 


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N. 


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ridley, G.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Riley, B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
John, W.
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jones A. C. (Shipley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Cassells, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silkin, L.


Collindridge, F.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Daggar, G.
Leacn, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Day, H. 
McEntee, V. La T.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Tomlinson, G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. 
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Foot, D. M.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.
Whileley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W, (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.
Woods, 'G. S (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morgan, J. (York, W. R., Doncaster)
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley(M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. David Adams and Mr. W.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Joseph Stewart.


Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Donner, P. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett(C. of Ldn.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Apsley, Lord
Channon, H.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Eastwood, J. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Eckersley, P. T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Pertsm'h)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Beechman, N. A.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Emery, J. F.


Bernays, R. H. 
Croft, Brig. -Gen. Sir H. Page
Errington, E.


Bower, Comdr. R, T.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Everard, W. L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fildes, Sir H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Cruddas, Col. B.
Furness, S. N.


Bull, B. B.
De Chair, S. S.
Fyfe, D. P. M


Carver, Major W. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Geldie, N. B.




Gower, Sir R. V.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Loftus, P. C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Granville, E. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Magnay, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Guest, Lieut. -Colonel H. (Drake)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Storey, S.


Hambro, A. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hammersley, S. S.
Mayhew, Lt. -Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannah, I. C.
Moreing, A. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Munro, P.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nail, Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Higgs, W. F.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Turton, R. H.


Holmes, J. S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hopkinson, A.
Perkins, W. R. O.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hunloke, H. P.
Radford, E. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Hunter, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Kimball, L.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Richards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wragg, H.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rowlands, G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lewis, O.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.



Liddall, W. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lindsay, K. M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Mr. Henderson Stewart and


Lipson, D. L.
Salt, E. W.
Major O. Guest.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Ellis Smith rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Twenty-eight Members.

Mr. Barr, Sir Charles Barrie, Mr. Benson, Mr. Bossom, Captain Sir William Brass, Major Dower, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Ede, Mr. Owen Evans, Sir Arnold Gridley, Captain Hambro, Sir Patrick Hannon, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Leach, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Magnay, Mr. Markham, Captain Peter Macdonald, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. Parker, Captain Ramsay, Sir Isidore Salmon, Major Shaw, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Sir R. W. Smith, Commander

Sir Archibald Southby, and Mr. Watkins nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That Seven be the quorum.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four shall be the quorum of any of the Sub-Committees

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."-[Captain Hope.]

Adjourned accordingly after Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.